Transit Fantasy Maps | Page 422

Diez Mil Cantos · Mar 22, 2024

KevinT said:
Carried over from the GO Transit Fleet Equipment and other thread:

Fantasy land, but given the better grade handling capabilities of a GO train versus freight, I often wonder if a small trenched and tunneled GO-only diversion to duck under Lock 5 would be possible? You'd have to slow a lot for the curves, but you'd never have to stop:

View attachment 548911

Going under Lock 4 would eliminate the curves, but the train would have to duck too deep to be practical. The bottom of Lock 5 is higher, and makes me wonder if this couldn't work? Of course that rail line running beside the lock is also a complication, but should be solvable with a bit of reconfiguration of the junction by Glendale Ave.

Unfortunately the terrain you ploughing through is super steep(like the start of the niagara escarpment steep), and would definitely drive up the cost of a tunnel in that location. It would also require to start further back for it to not be past the 4% grade.

I would actually recommend a "St. Lambert Locks solution", where you have two draw bridges far enough apart for one to remain open during ship movement. If you start at the same spot and head north, to a new glendale road-rail-bike drawbridge, then you would have enough distance, grade, and curvature to do it for both passenger AND freight (giving CN incentive to support the project)

micheal_can · Mar 23, 2024

Diez Mil Cantos said:
Unfortunately the terrain you ploughing through is super steep(like the start of the niagara escarpment steep), and would definitely drive up the cost of a tunnel in that location. It would also require to start further back for it to not be past the 4% grade.

I would actually recommend a "St. Lambert Locks solution", where you have two draw bridges far enough apart for one to remain open during ship movement. If you start at the same spot and head north, to a new glendale road-rail-bike drawbridge, then you would have enough distance, grade, and curvature to do it for both passenger AND freight (giving CN incentive to support the project)

Interestingly, When I saw that for the first time it confused me. However, it seems like a great solution for a problem that is rare, but still important to resolve. How often does the GO or Maple Leaf get held up due to a ship?

Diez Mil Cantos · Mar 26, 2024

micheal_can said:
Interestingly, When I saw that for the first time it confused me. However, it seems like a great solution for a problem that is rare, but still important to resolve. How often does the GO or Maple Leaf get held up due to a ship?

I know someone who works engineering at the seaway, and they tell me that Canadian maritime law gives precedence to ships over trains, which is a partial reason why there's so few slots that CN is willing to hand over to GO/Metrolinx. I honestly thing doubling the capacity at the chokepoint allows for no need of slots since there's always at least one bridge open. Cause yes, that canal gets busy in the summer, and a 20 minute delay waiting for the bridge to go up and down can really ruin someone's day

micheal_can · Mar 26, 2024

Diez Mil Cantos said:
I know someone who works engineering at the seaway, and they tell me that Canadian maritime law gives precedence to ships over trains, which is a partial reason why there's so few slots that CN is willing to hand over to GO/Metrolinx. I honestly thing doubling the capacity at the chokepoint allows for no need of slots since there's always at least one bridge open. Cause yes, that canal gets busy in the summer, and a 20 minute delay waiting for the bridge to go up and down can really ruin someone's day

Which is likely why the thing at St Lambert is done as it is.