[nfitz]

Semi-fantasy proposal:

You've only looked at the plan view. Surely the vertical is far more critical. Right at the start, you leave (heading westbound) the existing track, just west of Black Creek, and quickly climb from an elevation of 330 m AMSL to 360 m AMSL, in about 500 metres. This isn't physically possible. And even if you cut a trench, you'd be cutting right into the Niagara Escarpment, which would never be allowed.

Guelph-Georgetown has some 3 curves, but otherwise, it's one of the straightest pieces of track GO operates on. There's no reason they can't run full speed through level crossings - I don't see that's an issue. We're not running 300 km/hr.

 

[reaperexpress]

You've only looked at the plan view. Surely the vertical is far more critical. Right at the start, you leave (heading westbound) the existing track, just west of Black Creek, and quickly climb from an elevation of 330 m AMSL to 360 m AMSL, in about 500 metres. This isn't physically possible. And even if you cut a trench, you'd be cutting right into the Niagara Escarpment, which would never be allowed.

Here's the elevation profile of the land under the proposed line.

full size image

They would need to cut a trench anyway, in order to pass under roads.

Interestingly, the existing rail line also climbs from 320m to 355m at the same place.

Guelph-Georgetown has some 3 curves, but otherwise, it's one of the straightest pieces of track GO operates on. There's no reason they can't run full speed through level crossings - I don't see that's an issue. We're not running 300 km/hr.

Those 3 curves are in the middle between the stops, where the trains would otherwise be going their fastest. Instead they have to slow down to 30mph to take those sharp corners that we can't fix, and spend a bunch of time accelerating to line speed, just in time to slow down again for the next corner. That's the main reason the new line would increase the average speed by 115% from 72km/h to 155km/h. The max speed itself would only increase by 71%, from 70mph to 125mph.

Above 110mph, there can't be any level crossings.

 

[nfitz]

Interestingly, the existing rail line also climbs from 320m to 355m at the same place.

It does eventually ... has to ... but it doesn't do it in 500 metres! Looking at a top map, you've got a 25 metre or so rise in only 200 metres.

Back in the early 1980s, VIA Rail did design work to run high speed rail down this route, from Toronto to London. Presumably they proposed adjustments to those curves. What did they show? I'd think CANAC would be the sub-consultant they used.

 

[reaperexpress]

It does eventually ... has to ... but it doesn't do it in 500 metres! Looking at a top map, you've got a 25 metre or so rise in only 200 metres.

My point is that if the existing line does it, the new one can too. That means that they might have to smooth out slopes just like with every other piece of road or rail infrastructure.
I don't buy the argument that we can't build a trench in the Niagara Escarpment. The slope in question is located next to a quarry!

Back in the early 1980s, VIA Rail did design work to run high speed rail down this route, from Toronto to London. Presumably they proposed adjustments to those curves. What did they show? I'd think CANAC would be the sub-consultant they used.

 

[dunkalunk]

I too have had this idea in the past and would like to see a similar line built but without having proper elevation data, I would have no idea how feasible the idea would be. In combination with a grade separation of the line through Guelph [MAP], it would speed up line speeds dramatically.

 

[reaperexpress]

I too have had this idea in the past and would like to see a similar line built but without having proper elevation data, I would have no idea how feasible the idea would be. In combination with a grade separation of the line through Guelph [MAP], it would speed up line speeds dramatically.

Absolutely! It's your map which got me thinking about this in the first place.

 

[nfitz]

My point is that if the existing line does it, the new one can too.

The existing line doesn't climb up 25 metres in 200 metres. It follows Black Creek through the Niagara Escarpment, and climbs more gently. You've cut right through the escarpment. There are laws against cutting through the Niagara Escarpment.

I don't buy the argument that we can't build a trench in the Niagara Escarpment. The slope in question is located next to a quarry!

Are you aware of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act? Are you aware the restrictions it places? Yes, it's adjacent to a quarry - and that area near the Escarpment and your tracks was licensed in the 1950s. Some of the quarrying was done in the 1800s. You wouldn't be able to do that today.

What did VIA/CANAC recommend in those 30-year old studies?

 

[reaperexpress]

The existing line doesn't climb up 25 metres in 200 metres. It follows Black Creek through the Niagara Escarpment, and climbs more gently. You've cut right through the escarpment. There are laws against cutting through the Niagara Escarpment.

Are you aware of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act? Are you aware the restrictions it places? Yes, it's adjacent to a quarry - and that area near the Escarpment and your tracks was licensed in the 1950s. Some of the quarrying was done in the 1800s. You wouldn't be able to do that today.

I'm aware of the Niagara Escarpment act, but I'm also aware of the Greenbelt Act and the Oak Ridges Moraine Protection Act, neither of which seem to have stopped housing developments from being built on the Oak Ridges Moraine.

What did VIA/CANAC recommend in those 30-year old studies?

Jeez, give me some time. I'm currently reading the 1995 "Quebec-Ontario High Speed Rail Project Preliminary Routing Assessment and Costing Study" by SNC-Lavalin and DELCAN.

 

[nfitz]

I'm aware of the Niagara Escarpment act, but I'm also aware of the Greenbelt Act and the Oak Ridges Moraine Protection Act, neither of which seem to have stopped housing developments from being built on the Oak Ridges Moraine.

Housing developments that were applied for since the Acts were passed, or ones that were applied for years ago, and only being developed now. There's a big difference.

Though I don't think any of these acts prohibits development ... but cutting through the escarpment itself is a huge no-no.

Still, with all the rules these days about avoiding wetlands, woods, etc. I'd be surprised if you'd ever get a straighter alignment than what currently exists.

None of those existing curves appear to be 35 MPH curves. The one at Black Creek (the furthest east) appears to have a radius of at least 750 metres, should be able to run 75 MPH through there easy. Assuming a cant of 160 mm and a cant deficiency of 100 mm, you should be able to run through that one at over 80 MPH.

I'm only eyeballing though ... do you have the existing radii? Why do you think the existing curve limits to 35 MPH ... that would mean the curve radius is less than 150 metres, and the curves are all clearly bigger than that.

 

[reaperexpress]

I'm only eyeballing though ... do you have the existing radii? Why do you think the existing curve limits to 35 MPH ... that would mean the curve radius is less than 150 metres, and the curves are all clearly bigger than that.

I don't have the radii, but you can see that they are rather tight. Not 30mph tight, but certainly not 100mph either.

I'm working from the GO speed chart which indicates a 30mph slow zone between mileposts 29.9 and 30.0. I presumed it was due to a corner.

 

[reaperexpress]

What did VIA/CANAC recommend in those 30-year old studies?

The 1995 High Speed Rail study recommends building a new line from London to Pearson, serving Waterloo Region with a suburban station near the 401.

But the interesting part is that for the alignment which goes via Burlington, here's what they say about crossing the escarpment:

Tunnelling was considered desirable at the escarpment between Hamilton and Burlington - 3.25km to avoid the environmental impact of improving the existing CN alignment

So it looks like tunnelling is acceptable even if trenches aren't.

 

[nfitz]

The 1995 High Speed Rail study recommends building a new line from London to Pearson, serving Waterloo Region with a suburban station near the 401.

But the interesting part is that for the alignment which goes via Burlington, here's what they say about crossing the escarpment:



So it looks like tunnelling is acceptable even if trenches aren't.

Wasn't that report considered to be rather poor though, compared to the mid-1970s and the early 1980s studies? I'm pretty sure that the VIA/CANAC reports actually used more of the Georgetown line - at least in some options. But I haven't seen a copy in near 30 years.

I don't have the radii, but you can see that they are rather tight. Not 30mph tight, but certainly not 100mph either.

I'm working from the GO speed chart which indicates a 30mph slow zone between mileposts 29.9 and 30.0. I presumed it was due to a corner.

Isn't milepost 30.0 the junction with the CN Halton Subdivision, east of Trafalgar Road? There isn't much of a curve there. I suspect the speed limit is because of the junction. Now that's something that can be fixed with some $$.

I believe (heading west) the first big curve at Black Creek is milepost 33.8 (Limehouse ... which isn't actually near Limehouse ...), and then the curve in the centre of Acton is about 35.7, and the big curve at Rockwood is about 41.8. I'm estimating those though ... might be +/- 0.2 or so. What are the speed limits there?

Probably not 100 mph ... well, the Acton curve looks 100 mph, and perhaps Rockwood too. Black Creek, probably not ... but if you only have to slow down for one curve, it's not a bad route. Might be able to make that last curve a little faster, if you pushed into the adjacent quarry yard a bit, below the escarpment, where those sidings used to be.

Wish I had a set of 1:50,000 maps at hand. Should be able to measure the radius of each curve with a compass.

 

[reaperexpress]

Wasn't that report considered to be rather poor though, compared to the mid-1970s and the early 1980s studies? I'm pretty sure that the VIA/CANAC reports actually used more of the Georgetown line - at least in some options. But I haven't seen a copy in near 30 years.

Could be. I was surprised that they recommended building a bypass around communities such as London and Kitchener, and serving them with suburban stations. It might be better from an operational point of view, but a city centre station would help spur downtown intensification and revitalization.

I simply looked at what I found. I couldn't find any reports from the '70s or '80s.

Isn't milepost 30.0 the junction with the CN Halton Subdivision, east of Trafalgar Road? There isn't much of a curve there. I suspect the speed limit is because of the junction. Now that's something that can be fixed with some $$.

I believe (heading west) the first big curve at Black Creek is milepost 33.8 (Limehouse ... which isn't actually near Limehouse ...), and then the curve in the centre of Acton is about 35.7, and the big curve at Rockwood is about 41.8. I'm estimating those though ... might be +/- 0.2 or so. What are the speed limits there?

You're correct, that was my mistake. The rest of the line is posted at 70mph.

Probably not 100 mph ... well, the Acton curve looks 100 mph, and perhaps Rockwood too. Black Creek, probably not ... but if you only have to slow down for one curve, it's not a bad route. Might be able to make that last curve a little faster, if you pushed into the adjacent quarry yard a bit, below the escarpment, where those sidings used to be.

It only takes a single curve to force trains to slow down and lose time. Keep in mind how long it takes trains to accelerate to their top speed. So three turns is a pretty serious impediment.

In effect, trains' speed will be limited to the speed of those corners, since they won't be able to accelerate much between them.

 

[W. K. Lis]

A "real" fantasy map:



Walt Disney World Resort Transportation Map

Click on the map for the large display of the map.

 

[someMidTowner]

Heres a line that would never get built unless the Yonge line reached insane levels of overcrowding. Kind of stupid but I needed to kill a bit of time.
Runs southbound from Finch along Yonge, stopping only at Finch, Sheppard and Eglinton before curving slightly to the west where it continues south to Bay/Bloor station (as opposed to the congested Yonge/Bloor station). The route continues southbound on Bay stopping at NPS/Old City Hall, then continues on to Union. After Union, it would cease being an express line, curve to the west and continue along the rail corridor for 3 more stops. CN Tower/Skydome station, CityPlace Station, and Exhibition Station. The last 3 stops dont really help the main point of easing traffic on the yonge line, but they do solve a lot of transportation issues in the areas west of union station.