[mdrejhon]

Well, I think RER electrification needs to reach Kitchener-Waterloo eventually for roughly hourly all-day 2-way service. It is just a matter of congruences (should the grade separated electric RER corridor also handle HSR?).

Sending HSR trains through Guelph should be a matter of economics of needing the corridor for RER too. A HSR ready corridor could speed up RER trains possibly 160-200kph, or Kitchener RER actually becomes "HSR lite" itself with express that do not stop in Guelph, and all stops that do).

If Guelph wants one of the many daily HSR trains to stop in Guelph, they will have to pony up the necessary incentives (including allowing grade separations) to make it cheaper and more economical than the Bypass.

Obviously, not all trains need to stop in Guelph -- just a few.

 

[steveintoronto]

MD: Electrification of that corridor is not proposed as far as Guelph, so it's a bit of a conundrum. If Guelph is by-passed, there's always the option of a station in the south of the city, *much more appropriate* to circumvent a lot of those people driving to Toronto. The south of Guelph is a massive bedroom community for Toronto, with little in common with 'Old Guelph'. For the fifty or so Guelphites who do take GO daily, it would mean taking the pathetic Guelph Transit to the southern limits. Guelph had best have a real discussion with herself on this. I lived there for five years, but never did and never will become a Guelphite. The political myopia is blinding. It's no mistake that they lost one of the best smaller city newspapers in the country. They were just not sophisticated enough to support it. Unlike K/W to the west, Guelph talks about dancing, and yet has no clue which foot to put in front of the other.

And then there's their Planning Department. Grrrrrr....it's no mistake they are tied for the lowest residential vacancy rate in Canada. CMHC predicts new home starts will be down for Guelph again this year.

Service the present Guelph station with rail-cars, perhaps a shuttle to Georgetown if Crackton (Acton) is also by-passed, and allow the GO trains from K-W to go express around Guelph along with HSR on a by-pass. It's a ridiculously long ride on GO from K/W to Toronto, let alone Pearson. And meantime, Guelphites can figure out exactly what it is they want. Well...or try.

 

[crs1026]

It is absolutely absurd that Guelph Council would not connect the dots between the two agenda items they will consider on May 30th. The first is the wish list of items they are asking for federal infrastructure funds to complete. The second is the HSR item. Would it not make sense to add an item to the wish list?

I'm still hunting for the new Transport Canada regs. As I understand it, the setback of buildings at the Guelph crossings would have to be addressed, even if the line only sees the 2 (soon 4) GO trains and the daily freights that are on the books today.

It's a bit regrettable that Collenette is doing his outreach better than Metrolinx is. If ML were having the same meetings with council, the merits of addressing the grade crossings in Guelph for basic service (ie RER) might be more obvious.

As usual, ML will turn up in a couple of years and say "OK, we're ready to build RER" (as they did at Davenport) and the community will erupt. Can they not find a better approach to outreach than this?

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

It is absolutely absurd that Guelph Council would not connect the dots between the two agenda items they will consider on May 30th. The first is the wish list of items they are asking for federal infrastructure funds to complete. The second is the HSR item. Would it not make sense to add an item to the wish list?

What makes you think logic comes into their reasoning? Perhaps I'm being unfair to Guelph, I'm mostly used to large city living, or towns, but Guelph's major problems aren't due to diversity of opinion, it's due to political ineptness. As we're seeing in other cities, though (Brampton, for instance) it's not unique to Guelph.

I'm still hunting for the new Transport Canada regs. As I understand it, the setback of buildings at the Guelph crossings would have to be addressed, even if the line only sees the 2 (soon 4) GO trains and the daily freights that are on the books today.

I think the new regs would also pertain to more than crossings, it would also pertain to *proximity of residences*. Guelph's existing building by-law wouldn't permit it without concrete walls being put up. The affected area is just to the west of midtown, to the east, it's clear sailing. Don't be surprised if at the end of the day, the costs of utilizing the RoW to the west is far more than building a by-pass, which is, evidently, still the preferred default option. Running GO shuttles to the east to meet the main a few stops down the line might be one of the better options considered. Certainly an HSR stop at Guelph won't be justified by the numbers of persons using it.

It's a bit regrettable that Collenette is doing his outreach better than Metrolinx is. If ML were having the same meetings with council, the merits of addressing the grade crossings in Guelph for basic service (ie RER) might be more obvious.

As usual, ML will turn up in a couple of years and say "OK, we're ready to build RER" (as they did at Davenport) and the community will erupt. Can they not find a better approach to outreach than this?

It is Collenette's dedicated mission, but I agree, Metrolinx are a world unto themselves. The Davenport issue is a bit unique, and in all fairness to MX, the locals are being hysterical in many cases, it's just a few blocks from me, and I've spoken to a few rational folks there, been there decades, who resent the new NIMBYs , when if you were in London or New York, you'd be *delighted* at the thought of stopping trains to downtown a few steps away.

I think Brampton might be a better case-study, and I can't see how they're going to get two more tracks through there, community opposition or not.

 

[mdrejhon]

MD: Electrification of that corridor is not proposed as far as Guelph.

City politics nontwithstanding, and the bypass might be better, but electrification IS desired by Metrolinx to Kitchener via Guelph for RER:

(From RER Business Case Appendix, page 26)

This is simply punted till later (Phase 2 of RER?), as they are doing Scenario 5 Optimized instead. Once they solve Brampton (407 Bypass or triple/quad track) and catenary goes through.

However, ultimately, RER electric trains WILL go to Kitchener before HSR does, or at the same time....count on it. (It may or may not be one and the same, but whatever electrifies to KW will end up also including some kind of integration into RER). You can bet your mortgage that RER goes to Kitchener as soon as there is any kind of 25 kilovolt catenary on any route to KW. (RER and HSR is the same voltage).

The billion dollar question is whether HSR is /the/ express version of Kitchener RER (aka high speed GO train or "high speed lite") or simply separate services/trains sharing the same corridor in a multilayered service plan.

 

[crs1026]

I think the new regs would also pertain to more than crossings, it would also pertain to *proximity of residences*. Guelph's existing building by-law wouldn't permit it without concrete walls being put up. The affected area is just to the west of midtown, to the east, it's clear sailing. Don't be surprised if at the end of the day, the costs of utilizing the RoW to the west is far more than building a by-pass, which is, evidently, still the preferred default option.

I believe the standards are these http://www.proximityissues.ca/asset...es/2013_05_29_Guidelines_NewDevelopment_E.pdf

This graphic was from the above source

I don't know whether Transport Canada has the authority to enforce it. Nor do I know how it might be applied to existing structures. I do know of a case where it was bent in Toronto. Anyways, it's voluntary and won't be implemented overnight. Those raising it in Guelph may be making a bigger deal than it need be.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...l-rail-line-setback-recommendations-1.3401310

In Guelph, a simple jersey-barrier style wall would likely be sufficient to keep cars off the tracks. That would be cheap. Implementing the 30 m setback would pretty much raze the streets next to the tracks, west of the Guelph depot - not a lot of money, but pretty draconian for the residents.

- Paul

 

[mdrejhon]

Another expensive solution is to lower the ROW a little and trenchwall it instead to avoid the need for setbacks. That'd solve quite a lot of problems -- but at rather high expense. That may require converting some existing road underpasses to level crossings when the ROW is sunk (basically swapping grades between tracks & roads where grade separations already exist in Guelph), but would simplify a lot of other things.

Trench-walling a rail corridor through Guelph might make it more expensive than the Bypass, but if Guelph ponies up to avoid the Bypass -- then that can change the arithmetic.

The Bypass may end up being preferred indeed, but HSR likely needs to be weighed as a combined HSR+RER business case. What if additional infill stations ends up being warranted (e.g. Breslau) for example? The combined arithmetic needs to be done, not on HSR-only merits as well. If the cost difference is small enough (e.g. only 25% or less) then that's where electorate/politics (e.g. local pay-in) can shift the rail corridor.

 

[crs1026]

Just to put things in perspective - Phase I of the eastern extension of Highway 407, which will open shortly, required the acquisition of 342 properties, of which 80 required expropriation. The remainder were purchased through negotiated sales.

The rail corridor problem through west-end Guelph affects about 25 properties. A bypass would doubtless affect a larger number of landowners, and cost more as well.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

Paul: From a cursory glance at TC regs, you're right on existing structures:

[...]
4. Less than Standard Clearances
4.1 All existing structures, bridges, snowsheds, overhead timber bridges and tunnels which met previous clearance requirements, but encroach within the clearance limits prescribed herein, shall not be considered as having less than standard clearances and shall be permitted to remain until the restrictive feature is modified or replaced.[...]

https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/railsafety/standards-tce05-233.htm

"Modified or replaced" however, makes this problematic. And further to that:

[...]
7. Wires and Conductors
7.1 Canadian Standards Association Standard C22.3 shall be used for minimum clearances.

Watch for a backlash in Guelph in the coming days. Again, it's no what I think that matters, it's what Guelphites think, and especially the entrenched "Old Guelph" lobby. The suburbanites haven't a clue on most of these issues, but the Mayor (who I know personally) and the Board of Trade have every right to speak up on this, but it's not going to go over well.

Here's the (very unscientific) reader poll to what I posted before:
14:1 in support of the original post quoted, and now he's posted again:

The upgrades to the rail infrastructure are long past due. Any trains passing through Guelph have to crawl because of the number of grade crossings but money for this needs to come from Ottawa so it is time for the 'green' Liberals to walk the talk.

3:0 so far.

Guelphites are not going to want to pay for this. Tax rate is the biggest issue of not only Guelphites, but many smaller cities, including Brampton. So given the option, the average voting Guelphite is going to say "Yes, on one condition: we don't pay for it". Guelph is a classic case of a conurbation that wants everything, but doesn't want to pay for it. They want cheaper rates, but refuse to join a regional level of government. And they want the world to come to their doorstep, but not their backyards.

Meantime, rightly so, K/W is going to say: "Hey, forget Guelph, forget Georgetown and Brampton, we want to get to Pearson and downtown TO and in under an hour". The real problem is in servicing Cambridge, a whole other discussion in itself.

 

[steveintoronto]

Another expensive solution is to lower the ROW a little and trenchwall it instead to avoid the need for setbacks.

Read the regs I posted above. Plus they'd have to blast down, with only a few exceptions, Guelph's bedrock is down a few feet, and there's large amounts of water running through the substrates in that area.

It's the TC regs that pertain in this case. The default option to by-pass remains the status-quo. Guelph isn't going to change that without substantially raising the tax rate. Ain't gonna happen.

 

[crs1026]

Paul: From a cursory glance at TC regs, you're right on existing structures:

https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/railsafety/standards-tce05-233.htm

That reg deals with clearances around the gauge, but I'm not sure it deals with setbacks. I have found nothing on the TC website that deals with setbacks beyond the property line. I'm inferring that it's a municipal standard and not a railway safety standard.

Here's Toronto's study of the matter. I know of a case where the City allowed the "crash wall" approach rather than the full setback.

https://www1.toronto.ca/City Of Tor...Files/pdf/H/HMM336678-RR-230-0001 Rev 0_2.pdf

Guelphites are not going to want to pay for this.

I have some sympathy that this should come from the GO RER coffers, in part anyways. As I said, it's prime material for the federal infrastructure grants. Of course, if Guelph isn't paying, there's a limit to how much of a say they should have in how it is designed.

The real problem is in servicing Cambridge, a whole other discussion in itself.

As we speak, CP is in the process of cutting in new signalling from Guelph Jct westwards to Puslinch. One more extension to Killean, and there ought to be capability to extend one or two of the rush hour trains west of Milton.

- Paul

 

[nfitz]

Plus they'd have to blast down, with only a few exceptions, Guelph's bedrock is down a few feet, and there's large amounts of water running through the substrates in that area.

How is that a constraint? In some towns (Kingston comes to mind), they've quite happily blasted just to install sewers and watermains in new subdivisions.

And water? Really? Not at the depth you are looking at. Recall that the track is elevated east of Norfolk where the ground is lower. The issue is west of Norfolk, where the ground surface is somewhere between 320 and 325 metres above sea level (I need a better topo map - hard to read NTS 40P 9). However, the ground water level is controlled by the river, which is less than 310 metres. You really aren't going deep enough to have any significant groundwater concerns. And if you were ... well if they can build a new railway station in London under a shipping dock - then I think they can manage a metre or two of saturated bedrock. Large amounts? Come on, at best you see a sheen on the bedrock. It's very manageable.

I haven't read the rest of your "technical" analysis, but I assume it's equally bogus.

 

[MisterF]

I believe the standards are these http://www.proximityissues.ca/asset...es/2013_05_29_Guidelines_NewDevelopment_E.pdf

This graphic was from the above source

View attachment 76950
I don't know whether Transport Canada has the authority to enforce it. Nor do I know how it might be applied to existing structures. I do know of a case where it was bent in Toronto. Anyways, it's voluntary and won't be implemented overnight. Those raising it in Guelph may be making a bigger deal than it need be.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...l-rail-line-setback-recommendations-1.3401310

In Guelph, a simple jersey-barrier style wall would likely be sufficient to keep cars off the tracks. That would be cheap. Implementing the 30 m setback would pretty much raze the streets next to the tracks, west of the Guelph depot - not a lot of money, but pretty draconian for the residents.

- Paul

The above regulation is typically incorporated into municipal Official Plans and/or zoning by-laws. In older neighbourhoods where trains are slow and buildings are already close to the tracks, setbacks for new buildings can be reduced with other types of mitigation measures. And it doesn't apply to existing buildings - upgrading a rail line doesn't mean that you have to demolish all the buildings within 30 m of the right of way. There are plenty of buildings in Toronto, old and new, that are closer to train tracks than that.

 

[mdrejhon]

It will be a few years before they figure out whether the Bypass is happening or ramming through Guelph.

My feeling is it is actually probably cheaper to just expropriate through Guelph & not even build a station in Guelph. ("You want the trains to stop? Fund your own upgraded train station. Good luck.") Certainly, that will make Guelphites madder than a hive of hornets, feeling blackmailed. But possibly less mad than the Bypass since they can always change their mind in 20 years and fund a train station, or wait for favourable Feds.

Electric all-day 2-way service (hourly or half-hourly) would also defacto provide a shuttle back and fourth between Guelph and Kitchener, which would be quite alluring to them.

Let's remind ourselves that it's likely Guelph kids who will be voting on this -- not their parents -- it's a full generation from now before catenary stretches Toronto-Kitchener via any corridor. If sensible minds prevail, we see a station in Guelph that services RER allstops and possibly one or two peak HSR trains per day (but not most others).

A 4-coach or 8-coach EMU (suggested by Scenario 4 Full Buildout, which may even still someday happen) would have very low operating costs, require a shorter/simpler station, and would only need a few boardings per train to break-even the Guelph stop. With hourly or half-hourly 160kph electric RER service on an optimized grade-separated corridor, there's time to squeeze express 300kph-capable London HSR trains (which won't be able to do full 300kph through Guelph anyway) through on a two-track corridor that's otherwise more optimized for RER, there could be a passing track (even station) at Breslau, etc.

I have found out that the time savings of the Bypass is actually practically non-existent, versus an upgraded grade-separated corridor through the existing ROW which would dramatically speed up trains that still would now be able to do >200kph sprints between Kitchener and Guelph over a shorter straighter distance of track than the longer track required for a 300kph bypass. Yes, the Guelph curves will be sharp, but the track between Kitchener and Guelph is really straight-arrow, shorter distance (but not too short to prevent a >200kph sprint if need be), and permits major speed upgrades for a good sprint before slowing down to navigate the Guelph curves. Yes, there are extremely faint curves near Breslau, but they are so faint that in Japan/Europe, such similar gentle curves are 300kph navigable. So they are tweakable to 200kph+ with appropriate camber, no slowdown needed. Other than that, real straight arrow Kitchener all the way to Guelph. Now all that considered, even rerexpress agrees with me that there's no Bypass time savings when mathing out the combos (upgrade existing ROW and other tweaks, versus doing a Bypass).

Bypass actually has no time savings? Big whoop. Waste of money if it's more expensive.

Now it really boils down to economics. $$$

I am not yet convinced Bypass is cheaper ... It might be, that needs to be studied which I presume it will be compared. It ain't over til the fat lady sings.

 

[steveintoronto]

How is that a constraint? In some towns (Kingston comes to mind), they've quite happily blasted just to install sewers and watermains in new subdivisions.

And water? Really? Not at the depth you are looking at. Recall that the track is elevated east of Norfolk where the ground is lower. The issue is west of Norfolk, where the ground surface is somewhere between 320 and 325 metres above sea level (I need a better topo map - hard to read NTS 40P 9). However, the ground water level is controlled by the river, which is less than 310 metres. You really aren't going deep enough to have any significant groundwater concerns. And if you were ... well if they can build a new railway station in London under a shipping dock - then I think they can manage a metre or two of saturated bedrock. Large amounts? Come on, at best you see a sheen on the bedrock. It's very manageable.

I haven't read the rest of your "technical" analysis, but I assume it's equally bogus.

Well aren't you just the authority on everything?

The new building constructed last year at the corner of Waterloo and Gordon, on the south side of the promontory the Church of Our Lady is built upon immediately to the north, the one the tracks run alongside, was shut down until the water issue was addressed after they blasted and drilled out the basement basin. There's an aquifer that flows through there, there's many in Guelph. The basin immediately started filling with water until they brought in emergency pumps, drilled relief wells, and sealed the strata to stop the worst of the flow until the concrete foundation could set, and an non-permeable barrier installed. Most of the stone houses in Guelph are built from limestone and other rock quarried from their own basements.
But of course, you know everything. Be sure to inform the geologists.

Guelph is fortunate in that it sits on top of a permeable aquifer called the Guelph – Amabel Aquifer. This aquifer is formed by limestone/dolomite bedrock formations. The bedrock – the Guelph and Amabel Formations – extend in a wide band across Southern Ontario from the Bruce Peninsula to Niagara Falls. The bedrock formation is a good aquifer because it has large open spaces and cracks in some of the layers of rock. Wells in this aquifer are capable of providing sufficient water for individual houses or for large municipalities such as Guelph.

Most of Guelph’s water comes from a permeable zone within the Amabel Formation which is locally referred to as the “Production Zone”. In places, the bedrock is overlain by overburden deposits – clays, silts and sands that were placed by glaciers. Rain water must first infiltrate through these formations to reach to reach the bedrock. Some of these layers are aquitards and water moves very slowly through these layers. The aquitards act as barriers to protect the deeper groundwater resources. [...]

http://guelph.ca/living/environment/water/drinking-water/groundwater/

Wazzup Fitz? No wonder you don't like factual information. It interferes with your rants. Having trouble accepting that the default route for Guelph is a by-pass?

Checked the reader responses to the linked article today? It's a landslide against paying to 'join the High Speed Club'.