saveyorksouthweston
New Member
Now to work on keeping John Street open.....City of Toronto motion clearly states mandate of NO STREET CLOSURES, and ELECTRIFICATION.
Now to work on keeping John Street open.....City of Toronto motion clearly states mandate of NO STREET CLOSURES, and ELECTRIFICATION.
kEiThZ
Superstar
John street is not completely closed. It's just closed to cars.
If you are going to advocate for something it would help your case if you were honest. And somehow you don't seem to catch the irony about advocating for greater freedom of mobility for automobiles while complaining simultaneously about the pollution from a mass transit system.
nfitz
Superstar
It does seem very bizarre that they are fighting John Street being pedestrian-only, given that King Street will be at grade is only 150 metres further up the train tracks.
ShonTron
Moderator
Continental Airlines provides this from Newark to points along the Amtrak Northeast Corridor (Philly in particular) so it is not unheard of even in North America, though I am sure it is more common in Continental Europe.
London, ON to YYZ in particular makes a load of sense. No need for all those AC Jazz connections to YYZ (most passengers go on to other destinations).
kettal
Banned
So true.
Prometheus The Supremo
►Member №41+⅜◄
like i mentioned before and others have too, they're building a trench around 1200m long which will eliminate the need to build 2 road underpasses. if they go just a bit longer and add the CP tracks into the trench as well, they can remove all the level crossings, eliminate the lawrence ave. road underpass and restore it to grade plus keep john street open.
the current plan for the trench just looks very weird. 4 tracks in the trench, two outside at levels crossings, a ped bridge + road closure and an existing underpass:
church-------------------------king-----------------------------john-------------------------lawrence
2 track CP level Xing.............2 track CP level Xing.............2 track CP level Xing......... ugly existing underpass
............................................................................ped bridge only
4 track GO/22 trench.............4 track GO/22 trench.............4 track GO/22 trench....... ugly existing underpass
this makes more sense:
church-------------------------king-----------------------------john-------------------------lawrence
6 track CP/22/GO trench.....6 track CP/22/GO trench......6 track CP/22/GO trench......6 track CP/22/GO trench
for the other part of your statement:
closing down john street doesn't eliminate the car pollution john street automobile traffic would have caused, it will only relocate it to king street or lawrence. it does nothing to eliminate pollution and will increase automobile trip time causing more pollution (be it not by that much). it's not like removing a freeway to get people out of their cars and encourage them to use transit. a 2 minute detour won't get what would have been john street vehicular traffic to convert to public transit.
electrifying the blue 22 tracks and the GO tracks will drastically reduce local diesel emissions along the rail corridor. yes, electricity has to be generated and that may cause emissions somewhere else but that's another problem that is being addressed by the phaseout of coal fired power plants and the introduction of more cleaner power generation options. there will be lots of diesel trains operating in the georgetown rail corridor section from the airport to union station, also add to the the CP mactier sub east of the humber parallel to the georgetown sub. i don't expect all locomotives traveling through this corridor to be on electric power but if a good chunk which includes the blue 22 and georgetown GO does, at least it's a significant reduction.
and before anyone decides to take things out of context
, yes, i'm aware that the current locomotives use electric motors but they have diesel generators on board which generate the electricity for the motors.
Last edited:
Prometheus The Supremo
►Member №41+⅜◄
does anyone know the answer to the following question:
in order for a CP freight train to pass under a roadway bridge, what is the minimum distance the track must begin to slope down before the bridge is reached? distance between start of slope down to bridge overhead?
in order for a CP freight train to pass under a roadway bridge, what is the minimum distance the track must begin to slope down before the bridge is reached? distance between start of slope down to bridge overhead?
RedRocket191
Senior Member
When the Baltimore and Ohio was completed the maximum grade was 2.2%, and this became the yardstick for the highest desirable grade when crossing the continental divide. 2.2% grade means 116 feet elevation change for every mile travelled. Ideally you would have half that grade or better to keep fuel consumption down and speeds up.
Prometheus The Supremo
►Member №41+⅜◄
i had a feeling it was around 2%. does that translate around 45.52 feet length for every 1 foot of drop in elevation?
what is the minimum clearance required for a CP freight train to make it under a bridge? i found a online source for a bridge that states its clearance at 23.62 feet but i don't know if that's a standard throughout.
so by this figure and above numbers, the sloped length of track would have to be around 1075 feet (327.66 meters) before it reaches the bridge clearance.
Last edited:
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
like i mentioned before and others have too, they're building a trench around 1200m long which will eliminate the need to build 2 road underpasses. if they go just a bit longer and add the CP tracks into the trench as well, they can remove all the level crossings, eliminate the lawrence ave. road underpass and restore it to grade plus keep john street open.
the current plan for the trench just looks very weird. 4 tracks in the trench, two outside at levels crossings, a ped bridge + road closure and an existing underpass:
church-------------------------king-----------------------------john-------------------------lawrence
2 track CP level Xing.............2 track CP level Xing.............2 track CP level Xing......... ugly existing underpass
............................................................................ped bridge only
4 track GO/22 trench.............4 track GO/22 trench.............4 track GO/22 trench....... ugly existing underpass
this makes more sense:
church-------------------------king-----------------------------john-------------------------lawrence
6 track CP/22/GO trench.....6 track CP/22/GO trench......6 track CP/22/GO trench......6 track CP/22/GO trench
for the other part of your statement:
closing down john street doesn't eliminate the car pollution john street automobile traffic would have caused, it will only relocate it to king street or lawrence. it does nothing to eliminate pollution and will increase automobile trip time causing more pollution (be it not by that much). it's not like removing a freeway to get people out of their cars and encourage them to use transit. a 2 minute detour won't get what would have been john street vehicular traffic to convert to public transit.
electrifying the blue 22 tracks and the GO tracks will drastically reduce local diesel emissions along the rail corridor. yes, electricity has to be generated and that may cause emissions somewhere else but that's another problem that is being addressed by the phaseout of coal fired power plants and the introduction of more cleaner power generation options. there will be lots of diesel trains operating in the georgetown rail corridor section from the airport to union station, also add to the the CP mactier sub east of the humber parallel to the georgetown sub. i don't expect all locomotives traveling through this corridor to be on electric power but if a good chunk which includes the blue 22 and georgetown GO does, at least it's a significant reduction.
and before anyone decides to take things out of context
Unfortunately CP refuses to lower their rails and won't sell to GO/Metrolinx since the tracks are a major freight route to the north.
Is the Lawrence underpass all that bad? I mean really should we be looking at tearing up existing infrastructure (infrastructure that works) just for aestetic reasons?
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
Meaning that we'd likely have to rebuild the Dennison and Jane bridges as well.
Prometheus The Supremo
►Member №41+⅜◄
actually, the CP freight line is not a major line. if it were, it would be very unlikely that the bolton GO line would ever happen. i think the honda factory is pretty much the best customer on that line and keeps it alive. also, CP will have to relocate their tracks anyway to allow room for the blue 22 tracks.
the lawrence underpass is an eyesore, just like other concrete underpasses built around the 1960's in toronto. it takes up way too much room and will have to be rehabilitated or replaced in the future anyway. it also needs to be modified to allow the blue 22 tracks. the best thing is to have lawrence at grade this way there will be easier access to the relocated GO station and parking lot. not only would it be an aesthetic improvement, there would also be a functional improvement. it's so close to the trench that it would be a waste not to do it.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Prometheus,
As WH pointed out its not up to Metrolinx on which tracks get buried (unless we are willing to spend significant $$$s to expropriate the corridors). I don't find the solution all that onerous on the community. They didn't get a tunnel. But they did get a trench which accomodates most of their concerns about noise. They have most of their streets open to traffic and all their streets open to pedestrians. Even electrification which they demanded, was a long term goal anyway. All that has been accomplished is to move up the in-service date; which could well mean that some other community may loose out on better services if there is a significant net cost for the conversion. Nevertheless, I think most of us support electrification so I doubt there are too many concerns there.
I am upset at this group because they seem to refuse any reasonable compromise. They are offered a trench that accomodates most of their concerns. But they insist on a tunnel…which of course is not feasible when there will be mixed traffic (diesel and electric) operating on that line. To meet their goals of a tunnel we would have to electrify Georgetown and Bolton to the very last stop, and buy expensive electric trainsets to bolster rush hour services, hardly an economically prudent proposition. They are losing only one street which has a nearby alternate 175m away, which is hardly onerous in a car; and pedestrians remain unimpacted by the street closure. Nope, they continue to demand that every street remain open to traffic. And note that many of these demands come as Weston looks set to become a mini-transport hub (st. clair line, 2 GO train lines, Blue 22) which is sure to vastly increase the importance of Weston, bring in jobs, residents and development. Yet, they continue to demand the perfect solution with zero compromise. Indeed they are insisting that no new GO service be implemented until electrification is completed (which could take years). While I am sympathetic to many of their concerns, at some point that NIMBY label starts to look awfully authentic.
As WH pointed out its not up to Metrolinx on which tracks get buried (unless we are willing to spend significant $$$s to expropriate the corridors). I don't find the solution all that onerous on the community. They didn't get a tunnel. But they did get a trench which accomodates most of their concerns about noise. They have most of their streets open to traffic and all their streets open to pedestrians. Even electrification which they demanded, was a long term goal anyway. All that has been accomplished is to move up the in-service date; which could well mean that some other community may loose out on better services if there is a significant net cost for the conversion. Nevertheless, I think most of us support electrification so I doubt there are too many concerns there.
I am upset at this group because they seem to refuse any reasonable compromise. They are offered a trench that accomodates most of their concerns. But they insist on a tunnel…which of course is not feasible when there will be mixed traffic (diesel and electric) operating on that line. To meet their goals of a tunnel we would have to electrify Georgetown and Bolton to the very last stop, and buy expensive electric trainsets to bolster rush hour services, hardly an economically prudent proposition. They are losing only one street which has a nearby alternate 175m away, which is hardly onerous in a car; and pedestrians remain unimpacted by the street closure. Nope, they continue to demand that every street remain open to traffic. And note that many of these demands come as Weston looks set to become a mini-transport hub (st. clair line, 2 GO train lines, Blue 22) which is sure to vastly increase the importance of Weston, bring in jobs, residents and development. Yet, they continue to demand the perfect solution with zero compromise. Indeed they are insisting that no new GO service be implemented until electrification is completed (which could take years). While I am sympathetic to many of their concerns, at some point that NIMBY label starts to look awfully authentic.
Prometheus The Supremo
►Member №41+⅜◄
there is no bridge at denison road and the jane bridge is an overpass.
unimaginative2
Senior Member
When they were doing planning to bury the Union Station rail corridor, the freight railways determined that in order to operate full tonnage freights, a maximum 1% grade was desirable. I would guess that the same policy remains today.