News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.3K     0 

Urban Sky said:
It‘s not a matter of willingsness or cooperation. It‘s a matter of cost - and that is going to be substantial, as you‘d have to completely redesign the signalling and interlocking in the area. It can be done, but I doubt that anyone would be willing to pay for it, as it would only be used twice per week (Snider) or a few weekends per year (Doncaster)…
Click to expand...
At least you wouldn't need to expropriate the park.
 
Bordercollie said:
At least you wouldn't need to expropriate the park.
Click to expand...
The 'park' is at Doncaster (CN York-Bala). By the looks of curves on Google, it would be more than just the park.

CN Snider (York-Newmarket) has commercial properties on the s/e quadrant plus grade differences. Either way, expropriation.
 
lenaitch said:
The 'park' is at Doncaster (CN York-Bala). By the looks of curves on Google, it would be more than just the park.

CN Snider (York-Newmarket) has commercial properties on the s/e quadrant plus grade differences. Either way, expropriation.
Click to expand...
Correct, and as always: what is the pressing problem we are trying to fix here?
 
Urban Sky said:
Correct, and as always: what is the pressing problem we are trying to fix here?
Click to expand...
It would avoid the time-consuming three-point turn that the Canadian needs to do, and allow Via trains toward Montreal/Ottawa to easily divert via the Newmarket sub if there is an issue on the Kingston sub, and the Richmond Hill line could easily divert via the Newmarket sub whenever the Bala sub is flooded.
But with only three trains per week during regular operations and a need to expropriate industrial properties, the cost-benefit ratio would be terrible.
 
Last edited:
reaperexpress said:
It would avoid the time-consuming three-point turn that the Canadian needs to do, and allow Via trains toward Montreal/Ottawa to easily divert via the Newmarket sub if there is an issue on the Kingston sub, and the Richmond Hill line could easily divert via the Newmarket sub whenever the Bala sub is flooded.
But with only three trains per week during regular operations and a need to expropriate industrial properties, the cost-benefit ratio would be terrible.
Click to expand...
It would certainly be a „nice-to-have“, which would justify very modest capital investments (e.g. if it only required an additional crossover at an already planned major redesign/resignalling of the junction area), but it indeed doesn‘t justify the massive costs of triggering a major redesign/resignalling…
 
reaperexpress said:
It would avoid the time-consuming three-point turn that the Canadian needs to do, and allow Via trains toward Montreal/Ottawa to easily divert via the Newmarket sub if there is an issue on the Kingston sub, and the Richmond Hill line could easily divert via the Newmarket sub whenever the Bala sub is flooded.
But with only three trains per week during regular operations and a need to expropriate industrial properties, the cost-benefit ratio would be terrible.
Click to expand...

I am not sure how the suggested connection through "the park" at Doncaster (CN York-Bala) would help the Canadian. As shown below, train 2 arrives straight into Toronto on the Bala Sub (crossing the York Sub) and is facing west in the station. Then when Train 1 leaves Toronto, it continues west to the Newmarket Sub, and wyes onto the York Sub.

A connection between Newmarket south and York east would work, but it would be useless for detours because of the increase in distance traveled on CN's busy York Sub (better to wye at Bala), and for the Canadian, its not worth it for only 2 trains a week, and only in one direction.

1692376436350.png
 
Allandale25 said:
I'm going to make a new guess. One direction up the Belleville/Don Spur, the other direction down the Stouffville Line to the LSE Line. I am happy to be wrong/misguided. cc @crs1026
Click to expand...
Now that's an intriguing idea. I can see the merits in it because the impacts on both ML and CP are a lot more manageable. That way, VIA only needs one track from Tapscott to Leaside, possibly sharing part (the Don bridge, for instance) with CP... may be an easier sell if there is only one train per hour and all trains in a single direction (assume westward) .... and it can interleave with ML more easily going eastwards because there is little variability in departing eastward trains, whereas westward trains joining the GO flow will be less predictable.

The down side is, it doubles the construction cost since both routes would likely need new construction. And CP might demand flyover/unders instead of level crossovers to get VIA across its line. Possibly more $ to construct than if VIA picks one route and builds 2-way capacity. If it saved the cost of a new Don Bridge, I can see the appeal however.

- Paul
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top