smallspy
Senior Member
Not from Washago to Toronto - but rather, from Concord or Snider to Parkdale. Just the bottom half of the Newmarket Sub. That's the only portion of the line referenced in the Bypass reports.
Dan
- Thread starter vic
- Start date
Not from Washago to Toronto - but rather, from Concord or Snider to Parkdale. Just the bottom half of the Newmarket Sub. That's the only portion of the line referenced in the Bypass reports.
Dan
crs1026
Superstar
Ahhh... gotcha. I don't know the answer to that one, other than there are photos on line that put the date of the last detours as Feb-March 2007.
After one of those events - one underpowered freight stalled on the grade, blocking the line - I recall having a chat with a CN RTC who told me "we won't be doing that much longer". Whether that was a dont-let-that-happen resolution or a formal final decision, I don't know.
Obviously the sale of the Kingston Oakville Bala and Newmarket Subs to GO must have had an impact, as did the closure of Don Yard, as did the perpetual construction through the USRC. As did the Harrison-era rationalisation of CN intermodals and auto trains, which ended any planned through freights using the USRC.
- Paul
steveintoronto
Superstar
Here's where the mystery signals have gone:
The berm is illustrated to occupy the alignment those signals are situated for:
So if a start on construction is imminent, why would Metrolinx place a signal stalk right in line with the construction, and not for a detour of the track?
Too many things don't add up to the story being proffered.
Right next to the normally red 41, as correctly detailed prior by @crs1026 .
-: Photos by myself
http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regiona.../Davenport_Diamond_EPR_Appendix_K_Updated.pdf
The berm is illustrated to occupy the alignment those signals are situated for:
https://www.metrolinxengage.com/en/content/background-davenport-diamond-grade-separation
So if a start on construction is imminent, why would Metrolinx place a signal stalk right in line with the construction, and not for a detour of the track?
Too many things don't add up to the story being proffered.
Last edited:
steveintoronto
Superstar
Again, I think this indicates the project being 'kicked down the road'. A loop if not completely double tracked? Perhaps, and a double diamond installed too. (Double track both lines, allowing bi-directional movement on each line across the diamond for any given window)
Flyover? Who's going to pay for it? This present QP regime? They're avoiding any substantial investment they can find.
Last edited:
crs1026
Superstar
Doubling the diamond is an interesting idea, but it would be prohibitively expensive - the topography back there is not favourable. A lot of money would have to be spent on drainage. Not to mention issues with proximity to recently constructed buildings. And the placement of the double track is not that favourable, since it’s not precisely 15 minutes’ headway from the passing section from Steeles to Concord.... so the headways would be wonky.
And, it would have to be a couple miles long anyways - just as expensive and just as intrusive as the flyover. And CP is expecting that the conflict of the diamond will be eliminated, not maintained. And that would guarantee that ML would never be able to restart the flyover at a later date, given legalities and community opposition etc. I bet they would prefer to do nothing than go backwards.
I do think the flyover is actually going to happen. ML gets nothing from doing site prep, and neither does the politicians, unless they actually are about to let the contract. The RFP would not have closed so far after the election if the Ford gang were opposed. There is not the urgency or the money to make this priority one, but now that the subway package is announced with Yonge extension some years away, there will be the need to show some movement on GO, especially to the 905.
- Paul
steveintoronto
Superstar
I don't follow your logic.
Perhaps we're not talking the same thing:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_junction
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Also the flyover is planned to be for double track, but just one track used for now. I completely dispute your costing assumptions, but it might or must be based on a misunderstanding on either your or my part. The bridges are all in place and in good shape from what I can tell (equivalent shape to others on the Metrolinx network) albeit they need some TLC in spots as do many others.
As for pathings, if the intersecting traffic is blocked for the lateral direction of movement, bidirectional traffic across the junction through the same window can utilize the existing traffic sensors and only a slightly increased circuitry as for one track at present. Ford can state: "We've doubled throughput within the same window being used now". Technically he'd be correct although to achieve that would require coordinated train control schedule and operation.
There is one massive problem, which in fact plays into the present QP regime's playbook: Catenary. CP won't allow it to cross their track. It's not their legal decision to make, but the CTC will agree with them on this. And Ford, Fedelli and Foolishness will rejoice together. There's absolutely no sign of electrification on the horizon.
"For the People, we've stopped the intrusion of Davenport Flyover Liberal Fiasco, and with our partners at CP, found a much better solution and saved taxpayers at least $250M, and put an end to the division of neighbourhoods, electric interference and the scourge of progress".
Sound ridiculous? It is...but that's exactly what they did with the K/W line and CN. Ford will claim that a 'simpler and cheaper double tracking arrangement is even more effective for increasing GO service than a single tracked flyover'. Whether that's true or not matters little to the F Bros. And the gullible masses will accept it, as many have for the K/W line without the "Agreement in Principle". Remember that folks? It had a lot of you fooled.
So tell me, why would Metrolinx install the signal mast they have at that location when it's going to have to be moved again? It doesn't make sense with what they're stating. Some of what I posted was a couple of years old. The latter two pics were from their latest report, just released a few months back.
Addendum: Here's the track record of Metrolinx on this, just a couple of snippets of the reams of 'theories' on the matter:
Ah! But note:
Metrolinx were just kidding! They had their fingers crossed, both hands behind their backs, when they published that. It doesn't count, Doggie says so. Still fools a lot of The People though...
http://www.anabailao.com/tags/davenport_diamond_projectPosted on Davenport Diamond by Councillor Ana Bailão · June 22, 2016 3:07 PM
As many of you are now aware, I have been working alongside a coalition of 9 different community groups and other elected representatives in advocating for the best possible community outcome from Metrolinx's proposed Davenport Diamond project. On Tuesday it was announced by the Province that a GO Train station at Bloor and Lansdowne on the Barrie GO Line is a part of their new station plans.
There's a litany of broken promises and fertile ferment for the like of the F Boys to frollick in...
Show me the money!
Late Addendum:
That lends itself to at least two scenarios...one being Bait and Switch.
Evidently not. They'd prefer to do the 'preliminaries' and then kick it down the road, which is exactly where my point started. They'd have to have two diamonds operating along with two tracks before ripping up the original. End of Phase 1.
This is a regime literally taking food out of the mouths of babies. Slashing education budgets and lying about it. Slashing health programs and screaming the opposite.
And sprinkling extra GO runs wherever they can to say "We pulled out a plum, what good F Boys we are!" Even though most of them mean little to nothing in terms of actual utility. And some think they'll follow through on a (five year old estimated) "$250M" project?
Yeah...getting back to swamp land...
As a complete aside, note the Indian Railways double diamond, and the lack of flange notches at the rail intersections. That's a low-noise design, where the railheads of the lesser used line are bevelled down to the intersection, and the wheel flange is taken over the junction on its edge, rather than the wheel surface. I'll see if I can find a reference for that. I'm skeptical of the amount of wear and stress they put on the flanges, but many railways use them. One wonders if such would be possible at Davenport? Non-standard flange reach might be an engineering challenge though.
Indeed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange-bearing_frog
A one-way, low-speed (OWLS) diamond in Champaign, Illinois. This is an example of flange-bearing frogs in use on North American freight rail lines.
See:
Needless to say, Ford could do this and then claim: "We've fixed the noise problem and saved close to half a billion dollars doing it My Friends".
Last edited:
crs1026
Superstar
^The area of the diamond has fairly steep banks and big drainage ditches. The soil conditions are not all that different than down the road at West Toronto, which is known and notorious for high water table. So a second track would need new earthworks and drainage provisions. That narrows the price differential relative to the flyover.
The idea of having two opposing trains converge on the diamond at the same time is interesting, but I doubt ML could guarantee it operationally. And as I noted previously, without a long passing segment similar to the Concord - Steeles segment, meets would require padding and slower approach speeds. The longer the second track needed, again - the cheaper the flyover becomes.
Do you have a source for your statement that the flyover will only be single track? All the material during the public consultations suggested double track (with the corridor having width for a third track, at some more distant date). There will certainly only be one track during construction.
I’m not sure that those nifty diamonds are approved for passenger service in the non-frogged directions. The ones that I know of around here (Brampton, and Carew near Woodstock) are only good for slow speed. And they are damn noisy. They would be totally inappropriate for a passenger line crossing a heavy freight line.
I agree that CP will likely not cooperate with electrification at a crossing at grade. I am also the first to agree that the Ford regime is not at all interested in RER given its cost. But that is not to say that ML will get nothing. Supposedly, RER was a $15B project with completion by 2025. When first floated, that implied a cash flow of $2-3B per year from 2017ish til 2025. With Bowmanville and Niagara also promised, outside the RER envelope. Today is 2019 (Wynne dithered for a couple of years, there being no money in truth) and a more likely scenario is optimistically $500M per year. That’s still enough to finish off Kennedy- Unionville, do the Weston fourth track, finish the Stoney Creek extension, finish USRC upgrades, and connect Snider to Strachan as double track with the flyover. So while I agree that ML is misleading us egregiously by pretending that RER is still coming (and gradually rewriting 2025 to something later) I still expect some capital projects to emerge.
ML would not have started the site prep and continued the RFP unless they saw reason to. The site prep buys them nothing, and it actually pokes the hornet’s nest in the community. It handed the local Councillor and MPP an opportunity to agitate against the Province. If the project were off, Ford would have already declared it cancelled and reaped the community’s thanks.
As for signal 41, that mast is significantly taller than the old one, and it has three arms, which is unusual for a new permanent mast for an intermediate block signal. My theory is that elevating the signal provides additional visibility presuming that there will soon be lots of construction equipment alongside the tracks in that vicinity. Wiring it up today and removing it later is small potatoes.
- Paul
The idea of having two opposing trains converge on the diamond at the same time is interesting, but I doubt ML could guarantee it operationally. And as I noted previously, without a long passing segment similar to the Concord - Steeles segment, meets would require padding and slower approach speeds. The longer the second track needed, again - the cheaper the flyover becomes.
Do you have a source for your statement that the flyover will only be single track? All the material during the public consultations suggested double track (with the corridor having width for a third track, at some more distant date). There will certainly only be one track during construction.
I’m not sure that those nifty diamonds are approved for passenger service in the non-frogged directions. The ones that I know of around here (Brampton, and Carew near Woodstock) are only good for slow speed. And they are damn noisy. They would be totally inappropriate for a passenger line crossing a heavy freight line.
I agree that CP will likely not cooperate with electrification at a crossing at grade. I am also the first to agree that the Ford regime is not at all interested in RER given its cost. But that is not to say that ML will get nothing. Supposedly, RER was a $15B project with completion by 2025. When first floated, that implied a cash flow of $2-3B per year from 2017ish til 2025. With Bowmanville and Niagara also promised, outside the RER envelope. Today is 2019 (Wynne dithered for a couple of years, there being no money in truth) and a more likely scenario is optimistically $500M per year. That’s still enough to finish off Kennedy- Unionville, do the Weston fourth track, finish the Stoney Creek extension, finish USRC upgrades, and connect Snider to Strachan as double track with the flyover. So while I agree that ML is misleading us egregiously by pretending that RER is still coming (and gradually rewriting 2025 to something later) I still expect some capital projects to emerge.
ML would not have started the site prep and continued the RFP unless they saw reason to. The site prep buys them nothing, and it actually pokes the hornet’s nest in the community. It handed the local Councillor and MPP an opportunity to agitate against the Province. If the project were off, Ford would have already declared it cancelled and reaped the community’s thanks.
As for signal 41, that mast is significantly taller than the old one, and it has three arms, which is unusual for a new permanent mast for an intermediate block signal. My theory is that elevating the signal provides additional visibility presuming that there will soon be lots of construction equipment alongside the tracks in that vicinity. Wiring it up today and removing it later is small potatoes.
- Paul
steveintoronto
Superstar
Not what I wrote. I *emphasized* that it is to be double tracked, as shown in every drawing and illustration on the subject, albeit the later versions were split instead of being an homogeneous structure. That was a 'sop' to local ratepayers, and a reasonable one engineering wise too for reasons I won't go into at this time.
But also every piece of Metrolinx info on it indicates it will only be run single track (and the eastern one is the one shown in all the diagrams I've viewed) until 'later'.
I'll detail other points later.
Allandale25
Senior Member
steveintoronto
Superstar
So to which end are you now arguing? You make the case of "kicking the can down the road" which is exactly what the Ford regime will seize on. Add to that that the project is for a double track guideway, and Ford is obviously going to seize on that as 'waste' as it will only be using a single track (even though it's foresight, but that counts for nothing for Ford) and the interesting inclusion of the "diversion" and "diamond" in the RFP:
https://www.renewcanada.net/rfp-issued-davenport-diamond-project/
If the guideway is to come equipped with track on both sides (it was claimed to come with catenary posts, even though electrification somehow got lost along the way) then is that unused track to be used or not? And in what way?
Last edited:
steveintoronto
Superstar
appendix 6 transportation canada attachments
The FRA allows a 50% higher speed for passenger across the flange bearing side of the crossover due to Class 1 rating. Canada's Class 1 rating allows same.
Lots of info here, but many other sources available on-line.
http://railtec.illinois.edu/wp/wp-content/uploads/pdf-archive/Amstrong.5-14-10.pdf
I'm merely pointing out the tact that the Ford regime could and perhaps would take to 'deflate' the need to appropriate "$250M" (est. 5 years ago) for this project. Their mode of operation governing so far has been very clear. Like it or not, I see no reason that they'd change their tact on this project. But they need a 'sweetener' to their Bait and Switch, beyond 'all the money we'll save' and typically, as was done with the K/W, they'll actually have the temerity to claim 'Not only did we save all that money, but we're making it better'. And in this case, after proclaiming how they've 'saved the community from the intrusion' and 'saved taxpayers a bundle of cash' they be able to claim 'and we've made the crossover much quieter for the benefit of The People'.
Are you sure they're a flange-lift type? The whole purpose of them is to reduce noise and wear:
https://www.arema.org/files/library...ring_Technology_in_Special_Trackwork_2008.pdf
Trams have used flange-lift frogs for over a century for exactly these reasons.
Last edited:
raptor
Senior Member
steveintoronto
Superstar
Exactly. The crossover is there for some time yet, "grade separation" means no signals to cross....I wonder when the other shoe drops? 'We're running more service using diesel since the promise of electric only for anything more than "once an hour" applied to the expensive Liberal flyover'.
Last edited:
raptor
Senior Member
You may be right, but let me add one more piece to the puzzle. I've noticed multiple CP trucks in the vicinity of the rail crossing. I'm pretty sure it's CP crews that are working on the new signal system. If that's indeed the case, then they will do whatever is best for them right now, regardless if a new flyover is built or not. In other words, it's not an indication whether the grade separation is happening or not.
steveintoronto
Superstar
Exactly again. I would do too if I were them, although their being the prime user of the diamond in terms of axles crossing, legally it's them required to maintain it. That's FRA regs, and I'll look for similar in the Cdn ones and post later.
Metrolinx can't help but spin it their way though:
For The People!
Why would they be doing it if the flyover is imminent?
Last edited: