News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.9K     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
 5.1K     0 

EnviroTO said:
With CP's Yards where they are, I would have VIA HFR connect to the Stouffville on a new east-west connection just north of Major Mackenzie Dr.
Click to expand...

While that certainly is an option, I am not convinced it is the best one for the following reasons:
  1. Passing through the CPR Toronto Yard won't be as hard as it would have been a decade ago. Under Hunter Harrison's leadership (starting 2012), CP removed the yard's hump and its 72 classification tracks (C Yard). This leaves lots of room for VIA to build a bypass.
  2. North of the 407, the Stouffville Sub is single track and has a lot of level crossings. I'm not sure how feasible it would be to share single track with GO, and while double track level crossings are possible, they do tend to be problematic, especially with higher speed trains in an urban setting. By comparison, that section of the Havelock Sub has fewer crossings and, more importantly, they are more rural, and thus will have fewer cars crossing it.
 
roger1818 said:
While that certainly is an option, I am not convinced it is the best one for the following reasons:
  1. Passing through the CPR Toronto Yard won't be as hard as it would have been a decade ago. Under Hunter Harrison's leadership (starting 2012), CP removed the yard's hump and its 72 classification tracks (C Yard). This leaves lots of room for VIA to build a bypass.
  2. North of the 407, the Stouffville Sub is single track and has a lot of level crossings. I'm not sure how feasible it would be to share single track with GO, and while double track level crossings are possible, they do tend to be problematic, especially with higher speed trains in an urban setting. By comparison, that section of the Havelock Sub has fewer crossings and, more importantly, they are more rural, and thus will have fewer cars crossing it.
Click to expand...

Interleaving into the flow on the Stouffville line (which is planned to absorb a ginormous volume of closely-spaced RER trains) will be complicated enough over the short stretch from the CP overpass down to Kennedy and on to Scarborough Jct. Joining the line further north, and having to follow GO trains that will be stopping all the way down, would be very painful.

There is now plenty of room to build a dedicated main line track for HFR skirting along the north side of the Agincourt Yard. It will be interesting to see how a connecting track would be built to reach the Stouffville line. Curvature will be tight, which means trains will have to run slowly. Ideally one would have an underpass under the CP line, but that's expensive and could take time to build. If the connecting track isn't an underpass, it will have to cross CP's freight line at grade, similar to how VIA transits Smiths Falls at the moment. That's a recipe for CP to undermine the whole premise of improving reliability by removing conflict with freight...... doubly so if VIA intends to carry on along the Belleville Sub to Leaside and down the Don Branch. And if VIA does choose the GO line, trains will cross over at grade to join that line....inevitably this will conflict with GO movements. All doable, but the useable high speed portion of the line will likely end around Tapscott.

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
Interleaving into the flow on the Stouffville line (which is planned to absorb a ginormous volume of closely-spaced RER trains) will be complicated enough over the short stretch from the CP overpass down to Kennedy and on to Scarborough Jct. Joining the line further north, and having to follow GO trains that will be stopping all the way down, would be very painful.

There is now plenty of room to build a dedicated main line track for HFR skirting along the north side of the Agincourt Yard. It will be interesting to see how a connecting track would be built to reach the Stouffville line. Curvature will be tight, which means trains will have to run slowly. Ideally one would have an underpass under the CP line, but that's expensive and could take time to build. If the connecting track isn't an underpass, it will have to cross CP's freight line at grade, similar to how VIA transits Smiths Falls at the moment. That's a recipe for CP to undermine the whole premise of improving reliability by removing conflict with freight...... doubly so if VIA intends to carry on along the Belleville Sub to Leaside and down the Don Branch. And if VIA does choose the GO line, trains will cross over at grade to join that line....inevitably this will conflict with GO movements. All doable, but the useable high speed portion of the line will likely end around Tapscott.

- Paul
Click to expand...

Totally see what you're saying but given the estimate of $6B for HFR (I think that's what I've seen), one would hope the JPO will include a grade separation to deal with the CP Belleville Sub cross. Generally, the more rail/rail grade separations they can throw in the better. As for dealing with GO, definitely see the challenge and again hope the JPO addresses how this can be dealt with.
 
crs1026 said:
Interleaving into the flow on the Stouffville line (which is planned to absorb a ginormous volume of closely-spaced RER trains) will be complicated enough over the short stretch from the CP overpass down to Kennedy and on to Scarborough Jct. Joining the line further north, and having to follow GO trains that will be stopping all the way down, would be very painful.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I think VIA north of Agincourt would be a nightmare, given the narrow right-of-way, totally different stopping patterns, lack of grade-separation, tight curves, and lack of space for grade separations or curve widening.

I don't think it would be much of a big deal south of Agincourt though. There are no intermediate stations between the CP line and Kennedy, and if they do build Lawrence East station there will be enough room for a third and maybe fourth track in the station itself, allowing fast trains to overtake stopped locals if necessary. Kennedy itself is such a massive hub that I figure that most if not all VIA trains would stop there. And Metrolinx is already planning to grade-separate Scarborough Junction and quad-track the Kingston sub from there to the USRC, so express trains can overtake the frequent local services at Danforth and East Harbour.

There is now plenty of room to build a dedicated main line track for HFR skirting along the north side of the Agincourt Yard. It will be interesting to see how a connecting track would be built to reach the Stouffville line. Curvature will be tight, which means trains will have to run slowly. Ideally one would have an underpass under the CP line, but that's expensive and could take time to build. If the connecting track isn't an underpass, it will have to cross CP's freight line at grade, similar to how VIA transits Smiths Falls at the moment. That's a recipe for CP to undermine the whole premise of improving reliability by removing conflict with freight...... doubly so if VIA intends to carry on along the Belleville Sub to Leaside and down the Don Branch. And if VIA does choose the GO line, trains will cross over at grade to join that line....inevitably this will conflict with GO movements. All doable, but the useable high speed portion of the line will likely end around Tapscott.
Click to expand...

I think the travel times would be similar whether VIA runs via the Don Branch or the Stouffville Line. Either option has several slow segments.

Here's how I had envisioned the Stouffville Line option:
Due to the huge height difference between the CP and GO lines at Agincourt, it wouldn't be possible for the VIA line to cross over both at once. So VIA would need to run on the south side of the CP corridor. The initial HFR project could work with single-track operation along the eastbound curve, but I think there's room to future-proof for a separate overpass for westbound VIA services to resolve the conflict with northbound GO trains.
Capture1.JPG


The next three road crossings (Midland, Sheppard, and Brimley) have 5-track overpasses, which leaves room for 3 tracks for CP (or 4 if VIA only uses 1 track).
Capture2.JPG
Capture3.JPG
Capture4.JPG


Then the right of way conveniently widens, which would make room for a ramp leading up to an elevated structure bringing VIA over the CP lines and McCowan Rd.
Capture5.JPG


Like you said, it shouldn't be a problem to carve a ROW out of the west side of the CP yard, since any lost tracks could be replaced using the giant empty space where the hump yard used to be.
Capture6.JPG
 
^You might move the location of the flyunder a bit west, to get it away from the McCowan road underpass.

I wonder what is feasible where the HFR line meets the GO line....the creek bed interferes with an underpass, and a flyover would be quite a grade to go over the CP line and then down to the GO line. No easy solution.

GO is installing (has installed? I haven’t been out that way lately) new crossovers just south of the 401. Makes me think the connecting track would diverge just north of the 401.(that underpass is only good for two tracks) as a “flat” junction.

The more I noodle over this routing, the more I prefer it to a CP-Leaside routing, especially considering the huge price of giving VIA its own trackage over the Don Valley (big new bridges) and/or the challenge of sharing trackage with CP. I just hope that there is enough money in the HFR budget to do it right - And, GO hasn’t even got its improvements in service....I hate to think that any of that work will get torn up and reworked! Nothing moves quickly.

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
^You might move the location of the flyunder a bit west, to get it away from the McCowan road underpass.

I wonder what is feasible where the HFR line meets the GO line....the creek bed interferes with an underpass, and a flyover would be quite a grade to go over the CP line and then down to the GO line. No easy solution.

GO is installing (has installed? I haven’t been out that way lately) new crossovers just south of the 401. Makes me think the connecting track would diverge just north of the 401.(that underpass is only good for two tracks) as a “flat” junction.

The more I noodle over this routing, the more I prefer it to a CP-Leaside routing, especially considering the huge price of giving VIA its own trackage over the Don Valley (big new bridges) and/or the challenge of sharing trackage with CP. I just hope that there is enough money in the HFR budget to do it right - And, GO hasn’t even got its improvements in service....I hate to think that any of that work will get torn up and reworked! Nothing moves quickly.

- Paul
Click to expand...

I just imagined they would do it further north, and buy off some farmland to connect from the CP line to the Stouffville Line north of Markham, and avoid CP altogether
 
Last edited:
robmausser said:
I just imagined they would do it further north, and buy off some farmland to connect from the CP line to the Stouffville Line north of Markham, and avoid CP altogether
Click to expand...

But as @crs1026 and myself said one page back (in posts #9,463 and #9,459 respectively), using the Stouffville Line north of the 407 (or even north of CP's Belleville Sub) would be problematic. Given how overbuilt and under utilized that section CP's Belleville Sub and Toronto Yard are, I expect that it would be much easier for VIA to have dedicated tracks along that route. Much of the Bellville sub is single track, yet, as @reaperexpress said, the overpasses are built for 5 tracks and the yard had 72 tracks removed.
,
 
crs1026 said:
^You might move the location of the flyunder a bit west, to get it away from the McCowan road underpass.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and I'm sure that's not the only place that needs tweaking, given that it's an alignment designed in two dimensions by an amateur 6000km away.

But I don't think the overpass needs to be fully west of McCowan. I had in mind a fully elevated guideway, similar to the new commuter rail guideways built in Denver over the past few years. So it could pass directly over the existing rail overpass as long as there's somewhere to build the pillars.

https://goo.gl/maps/WCGM98c1b4W6bgWC8
Capture.JPG


I wonder what is feasible where the HFR line meets the GO line....the creek bed interferes with an underpass, and a flyover would be quite a grade to go over the CP line and then down to the GO line. No easy solution.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I follow. Why would we want an underpass? The CP line goes over the GO line, so I figure the westbound VIA track would be just high enough to clear the GO tracks (similar to the plans for Scarborough junction, except with an overpass ruther than an underpass). The remainder of the height difference to the CP tracks could be made up in the 400 metres between the GO line and Midland Ave.

And why would we want to go over the CP line at Agincourt? We can just go over at McCowan, more than 2km to the east. It's a big height difference in total, but over that distance the grade wouldn't be too crazy. The planned Scarborough Junction grade separation is also a relevant precedent in this respect, given that its eastbound ramp from track-level to the underpass under that same track is only 240 m long (more than 3% grade).

GO is installing (has installed? I haven’t been out that way lately) new crossovers just south of the 401. Makes me think the connecting track would diverge just north of the 401.(that underpass is only good for two tracks) as a “flat” junction.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much where I drew it in my concept alignment, I just had to shift it very slightly to the north. The GO tracks need to shift eastward on the north side of the underpass, to leave room for a future southbound VIA track on the west side.

The more I noodle over this routing, the more I prefer it to a CP-Leaside routing, especially considering the huge price of giving VIA its own trackage over the Don Valley (big new bridges) and/or the challenge of sharing trackage with CP. I just hope that there is enough money in the HFR budget to do it right - And, GO hasn’t even got its improvements in service....I hate to think that any of that work will get torn up and reworked! Nothing moves quickly.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I have a nasty feeling that in order to cut costs for the inital HFR rollout, they would build a flat junction at Agincourt next to the current GO alignment, and lock that alignment in place with the ramp up to the CP line. And then there wouldn't be anywhere to build a grade separation in the future. As opposed to my drawing where the interim flat junction is realigned so as to leave space for a future westbound flyover. This is the fear I have about much of the HFR project: that they will omit all the future-proofing to cut costs for the initial rollout, thereby making it difficult to subsequently upgrade the route.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top