[gweed123]

Stop it with the hysterics. Guelph isn't having "the core of the city" ripped apart. There may even be no demolitions at all. Just some construction and road lane restrictions. The whole thing could be trenched and covered.

If anything, I'd think it would be a benefit for downtown Guelph, since whatever ended up being built would likely be grade-separated (probably trenched). There would then be the opportunity to deck over it in select locations, which would help better connect the two sides of the tracks.

 

[steveintoronto]

Considering that they come from data that CN used to instruct running trades and determine how many tons a locomotive could pull over the line, I'd say they have validity.

Elevation at Silver MP 29.98 is 867 feet. At Acton MP37.0 is 1201. That's 334 feet rise in 7 linear miles.

There's a more significant hump west of Kitchener, from
1094 at 63.70 to
1281 at 66.65 and then down to
1191 at 67.10

Anyways, we're down in the weeds. You seem to feel that grades make the bypass preferable. I can't see how the grades change any with a bypass route, they hit the same 1200 foot crest just a little further south of Acton.

The point is a) the speed restriction through Guelph can be addressed for a certain sum of money - far less than a bypass - including double tracking the line through central Guelph, albeit with impacts in a very limited zone and b) There are no operationally challenging grades on the line between Acton and Kitchener.

We can't predict how Guelph Council would vote, but we know there will be both opposers and supporters in each direcction. If you count the number of residents affected, it's a couple of small blocks, nowhere near the scope of say the Davenport project. It's a valid role for the Province to have an overriding mandate that overreaches parochial local decisions. I don't think we have to seize the bypass as the only reasonable solution here.

- Paul

Paul:
You keep talking about every grade except the one being discussed, the one with the Go Slow order on it. The bottleneck, the one that's immediately to the west of Guelph centre.

 

[steveintoronto]

If anything, I'd think it would be a benefit for downtown Guelph, since whatever ended up being built would likely be grade-separated (probably trenched). There would then be the opportunity to deck over it in select locations, which would help better connect the two sides of the tracks.

Look at the map! How are you going to trench when every grade separation is already on a bridge as the line travels over the Speed Valley and to the western edge of town?

 

[steveintoronto]

You think the province is going to allow Guelph to trip up a major and vital economic link for the region?

I think they'll take the cheapest, fastest and least disruptive route. And as the report states, and for many pundits, that's a by-pass. Why so many of you presume dangling (gist) 'they'll pay the price for their insolence' over them is going to make any kind of difference displays how incredibly insensitive and draconian many of you are.

And not one of you has answered how freight operations can be continued while this "trenching" goes ahead, let alone the increased gradient that will result at the west end of the ditch on the hill....or do you plan to trench all the way to County 32?

 

[smallspy]

If anything, I'd think it would be a benefit for downtown Guelph, since whatever ended up being built would likely be grade-separated (probably trenched). There would then be the opportunity to deck over it in select locations, which would help better connect the two sides of the tracks.

Unless you're going down almost 100 feet, you're not trenching through Guelph. The Speed River and its valley will see to that.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[steveintoronto]

Unless you're going down almost 100 feet, you're not trenching through Guelph. The Speed River and its valley will see to that.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

Exactly, and other than a few pockets and ostensibly some of the drumlins, Guelph is situated on very difficult to dig terrain. Almost all of those stone structures? That was hewn from digging the basements. There's less than a foot of topsoil in most areas of Guelph, and most loose material is a very difficult to dig very coarse gravel. Digging a lamp-post hole? You call in the vacuum-diggers (Badger). Anyone thinking you just 'trench your way' through the core of Guelph lives in a dream. Most of it will have to be blasted.

Btw: When large developments go up, and the foundations are blasted out in Guelph, the material removed is given away for building elsewhere (on the surmise that you truck it out yourself), some of the limestone and other rock is of quite good quality.
[ The Guelph area, northwest of the west end of Lake Ontario, is under lain by Silurian dolomites of the Guelph and Amabel formations. Sandy Catfish Creek Till was deposited by ice flowing southward during Tazewell time. The origin of overlying clay till of Gary age is unknown.][...]

Pleistocene Geology of the Guelph Area Southern Ontario
http://www.geologyontario.mndmf.gov.on.ca/mndmfiles/pub/data/imaging/R061/R061.pdf

It's a shame that the west side of the city proper is so obstructive, but of course, Guelph was built on a series of drumlins on purpose....by a Scotsman! (John Galt). It rendered the Speed River worthy of its name, and an excellent location to dam it. The eastern rail access to the core is a magnificent alignment trenched into a hillside composed of loose till easily moved to build embankments where needed to the east.

 

[kEiThZ]

Look at the map! How are you going to trench when every grade separation is already on a bridge as the line travels over the Speed Valley and to the western edge of town?

Unless you're going down almost 100 feet, you're not trenching through Guelph. The Speed River and its valley will see to that.

Use your imaginations a little. Grade separation doesn't necessarily mean trenched. Just look at the elevated HSR corridors elsewhere in the world.

I think they'll take the cheapest, fastest and least disruptive route. And as the report states, and for many pundits, that's a by-pass. Why so many of you presume dangling (gist) 'they'll pay the price for their insolence' over them is going to make any kind of difference displays how incredibly insensitive and draconian many of you are.

The only one making assumptions here is you. You seem utterly adamant that we're ignorant to the concerns of Guelphites or that we are insistent on imposing something on them. Nothing of the sort. We're simply realists who think that the provincial government is unlikely to tolerate NIMBYism.

Also, being realistic also includes consideration that plans can change. If that bypass proves to be more expensive that grade separation through Guelph, well, guess what.....

Ultimately, I am not in favour of one or the other. I just don't think people should get their hopes up on the idea that Guelph's core is so special that a major provincial initiative would be stalled. More precious history has been and will be bulldozed for less.

And not one of you has answered how freight operations can be continued while this "trenching" goes ahead

If and when any frequent or HSR service gets started on that route, you can expect Metrolinx to buy the line and ban freight traffic. They'll work the railways to build freight bypasses.

 

[nfitz]

Unless you're going down almost 100 feet, you're not trenching through Guelph. The Speed River and its valley will see to that.

The Speed isn't an issue, looking at where you'd do it. You'd have to go no deeper than the elevation of Gordon Street. How is this an issue.

The real isssue is actually Gordon Street. The track is elevated over Gordon Street. So trenching Kent isn't really an option. The real answer is closing Dublin, elevating the tracks a bit, trenching Glasgow, and then elevating to the west returning to grade, somewhere east of Alma.

It's not difficult. I'm sure the Nimbys will kick up a fuss - but at the same time, they complain that they are building a highway from Guelph to Kitchener instead of improving the rail link.

 

[crs1026]

Paul:
You keep talking about every grade except the one being discussed, the one with the Go Slow order on it. The bottleneck, the one that's immediately to the west of Guelph centre.

This one??????? Not enough to matter. (For clarity I have never suggested trenching here. It's neither necessary nor feasible. )

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

The only one making assumptions here is you. [...]
If and when any frequent or HSR service gets started on that route, you can expect Metrolinx to buy the line and ban freight traffic. They'll work the railways to build freight bypasses.

Metrolinx already own it. Speaking of "assumptions". You're right Keith, everyone should just do as they're told. Don't need no stinkin' report or cost evaluation. Seems most of you now can't agree on whether to trench, bench or use skyhooks, let alone what upcoming reports will recommend.

Paul: The 'Go Slow' extends considerably farther than that. It applies as far as Silvercreek from Guelph Station. Excellent pics, btw, and done last Summer.

 

[steveintoronto]

A poster mentioned about a week back as to how the TGV network uses extensive by-passes in cities, not the least due to the historical nature of them, and how they're treasured by the locals and nationals alike. I guess the French don't know how to operate bulldozers? How does "Nimby" translate into French, eh? We'll show those backward Europeans how to do it, whether they like it or not. 'Is there anything a bulldozer can't do?'

From Centre for Cities, on exactly that point:

[Organised by the Independent Transport Commission, a study tour to France and the Netherlands provided very important lessons for those tasked with delivering High Speed 2. The participants included HS2 Ltd managers, senior Department for Transport civil servants, local authority officers from London, Birmingham, Manchester, Nottingham and Sheffield, rail consultants, engineers, lawyers, architects, planners and academics. Visits to Lille, Paris, Rotterdam and Utrecht provided very different perspectives on the UK’s HS2 debate:

1. Both France and the Netherlands have high speed networks, not just high speed lines. The first of its seven high speed lines was built in 1981, and three more are on the way. This long-term planning, beyond political cycles, has allowed the creation of a national network in a relatively short time. The UK’s high speed plans have, to date, been politically driven one-offs and a long-term plan for the whole country is surely needed.
2. High speed rail in France and in the Netherlands is about more than capacity: it is an integral part of regional economic strategy. For example, Paris and the Ile de France region aim to move from a mono-centric city towards a radial model, with employment centres in outer areas. This will require much better orbital links through outer Paris to enable business and residential growth. High speed rail has provided the means to connect up the city region, bypassing as well as connecting the capital, and linking with Metro and RER networks. In the UK HS2 and regional economic planning are much less integrated.
3. Despite our perceptions that other countries are NIMBY-free, French high speed rail faced significant public opposition, particularly from those living on the route. Objections were overcome by building long, expensive tunnels under open country as well as residential areas. Despite the budgetary implications, simply tunnelling under NIMBY suburbs has recently been suggested by Peter Hall* as a solution for the UK.]
4. [...continues at length...]

http://www.centreforcities.org/blog/high-speed-europe-eight-lessons-for-the-uk/

* (Peter Hall and Carmen Hass-Klau (1985) Can Rail save the City? The Impact of Rail Rapid Transit and Pedestrianisation on British and German Cities. Aldershot: Gower Publishing.)

(How to build on the HS3 rail plan, by Sir Peter Hall

4 July 2014 by Sir Peter Hall

High Speed 3, a new high-speed rail link connecting Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds, could help create a 'northern global powerhouse', allowing these great northern cities 'to take on the world'.)(Sir Peter Hall is Bartlett professor of planning and regeneration at University College London)
http://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1301349/build-hs3-rail-plan-sir-peter-hall

 

[smallspy]

The Speed is an issue, looking at where you'd do it. You'd have to go no deeper than the elevation of Gordon Street. How is this an issue.

The real isssue is actually Gordon Street. The track is elevated over Gordon Street. So trenching Kent isn't really an option. The real answer is closing Dublin, elevating the tracks a bit, trenching Glasgow, and then elevating to the west returning to grade, somewhere east of Alma.

It's not difficult. I'm sure the Nimbys will kick up a fuss - but at the same time, they complain that they are building a highway from Guelph to Kitchener instead of improving the rail link.

The Speed River and valley is an issue because there simply isn't enough room to have the station in its currently location AND drop it down to pass under Norfolk/Gordon. Doing so would also cause the closure of Wyndham. If you're going to trench that part of Guelph, you're going to have to start from somewhere well east of the river.

Going up and over would create far less of an issue with conflicts between the railway and any crossing streets.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[kEiThZ]

Speaking of "assumptions". You're right Keith, everyone should just do as they're told. Don't need no stinkin' report or cost evaluation.

There's only one person here who's made up their minds. And it's not me.

I'll wait to see what David Collenette has to say on the matter before I actually allow myself to really have an informed opinion. Other than that this is just railfan banter.

I honestly couldn't care less what gets built. But I do think Guelph itself might be better served with service running to the core of the city. The European cities you cite do exactly that. And they actually have High Speed Rail. As @Urban Sky has aptly pointed out, we don't need high speed rail on this line. We need higher speed conventional rail. And that means the same standards as HSR aren't necessary. To me that only improves the feasibility of offering services in Guelph's core.

Keep in mind that the government is trying to pivot the entire province to a European type transit dependent transport model, away from more car use. Any heritage or aesthetic or convenience concerns that Guelph residents have, must be placed in the context of wider provincial interests and strategic considerations. The government is as concerned about all of Guelph being adequately served as it would be about any concerns regarding voter opposition.

I'm thinking of the scenario where they model this thing and realise that there's substantial overlap between GO, VIA and the HSR and realize that the only way to make this work is to make this an hourly higher speed GO service which is all stop Guelph and west, and then runs express east to Union. Under that scenario, having a station in the core becomes essential to Guelph.

 

[kEiThZ]

A poster mentioned about a week back as to how the TGV network uses extensive by-passes in cities, not the least due to the historical nature of them, and how they're treasured by the locals and nationals alike. I guess the French don't know how to operate bulldozers? How does "Nimby" translate into French, eh? We'll show those backward Europeans how to do it, whether they like it or not. 'Is there anything a bulldozer can't do?'

Three points. First, the TGV bypasses certain towns because it isn't servicing them. We're discussing a scenario where Guelph is serviced. If it isn't serviced, then a bypass is likely. I foresee a bigger outcry in Guelph if the train is announced with a Guelph bypass. Next, you are the only one rambling on about demolishing houses. We've not see any plans to that effect. I'm sure, if service is planned through the core, every effort will be made to avoid touching any properties. Lastly, the houses along the rail corridor are hardly qualified as high grade heritage properties. It's certainly not the medieval city centre of some European town. Old does not equal heritage or historical necessarily. Nevertheless, I have no doubts that Queen's Park is going to try to build this without demolishing any properties.

[...continues at length...]

How convenient that you stopped quoting this list at "Local connections matter....".

 

[nfitz]

The Speed River and valley is an issue because there simply isn't enough room to have the station in its currently location AND drop it down to pass under Norfolk/Gordon.

Ah, I'd assume you'd start sloping only west of Gordon. Which is kind of pointless, as you'd likely be at the end of Kent before you've got a roof on it.

I can't see trenching it east of Gordon being considered - even if there were no river issues.