407 Rail Freight Bypass/The Missing Link

[steveintoronto]

The beginner two CN bypass track simply begins to open a 50-year-long Pandora's Box -- in a manner of speaking.

I just can't see this coming to pass, or allowing it to. I read of "six tracks" for the CN by-pass alone for some references. lol...

 

[crs1026]

Two, with lay-bys/passing tracks...for *freight*! This is outlined in the IBI report. That's predicated on the most modern signalling and control being in place.
.

I can't say precisely how problemmatic a MacTier routing would be for CP, but a couple of things are known.
First, a Bypass MacTier route is longer than the straight shot down the current line, so logic says a little more expensive. The added mileage also affects crew usage, since many runs only just make it end to end before their time on duty limits kick in.
Second, the Mactier segment has some single track segments, and the North Toronto segment has CTC orders prohibiting trains from standing and waiting in places.....and two grade crossings at Osler and Bartlett that can't be blocked. Adding the Galt Sub traffic would mean more trains stopping and waiting to pass each other, whereas the Galt Sub has so much double track that trains mostly pass without stopping. Layman's logic says it's likely that this would constrain operations and make trips longer.

IBI may offer a theoretical view, but only the railways know what their must haves are. Eg an island of most modern signalling may not work unless CN intends to install similar throughout the region....otherwise their locomotive fleet may not have the necessary electronics installed.

I put more faith on CN and ML reaching an agreement than not. That will inform what is needed. It would make much of the legal stuff moot - Ottawa will be happy to endorse a voluntary agreement between Ontario and CN. The legal stuff is simply the worst-case alternative that creates the desire for a mutually agreed solution.

- Paul

PS - operational inconvenience does not imply negative impact on the balance sheet. Railways do some very painful things to improve the balance sheet. Lower capitalisation, relief from the fixed costs of owning the Galt Sub, cash in hand from selling the line - there is a lot of upside to CP buying in even with an inconvenient detour routing.




- Paul

 

[mdrejhon]

I just can't see this coming to pass, or allowing it to. I read of "six tracks" for the CN by-pass alone for some references. lol...

Yes, your majesty. Your wish is my command. Six tracks all just for you, CN, as long as you give us our Precious.

Houston calling Mark Whatney on Mars. We've got an extra big cargo ship of political hot potatoes being launched to you.

 

[mdrejhon]

Coincidence?

A 407 LRT is mentioned as a year 2051+ goal:
http://www.407transitway.com/huront...07TransitwayHurontariotoHwy400_PIC1_FINAL.pdf

Is the BRT corridor the "protecting" technique for stations and two passenger tracks in the 407 Bypass/Missing Link corridor? Ottawa style progression of using BRT to reserve a future passenger rail corridor...

The same thing?

The 407 Transitway proposal and the 407 Rail Corridor has congruences that should be planned out mutually.

A protected progression in a shared 407 transit/freight corridor, where BRT shares the same six-track-width corridor initially with BRT+2 freight tracks, slowly progressing to 6 tracks CN+CP+Electrified passenger rail (RER/metro/LRT) in the future?

It is too concidential to be independently planned "transportation corridors".
(407 Transitway versus 407 Bypass/Missing Link)

 

[steveintoronto]

Ottawa style progression of using BRT to reserve a future passenger rail corridor...

I wouldn't think so LRT can handle grades equivalent to buses, RER style rail can't, albeit it can handle much greater grades than freight or heavy rail passenger. TGV basically goes up and down hills, instead of around them.

I can see no serendipity for RER and the BRT alignments they're displaying in those pics. But I do see these Googled references all alluding to "light rail":

407 Transitway - Kennedy Road to Brock Road
www.407transitway.com/kennedyToBrock/
Subject to the outcome of the study, the 407 Transitway will be implemented initially as bus rapid transit (BRT) with the opportunity to convert to light rail transit ...
Preliminary Design Study - 407 Transitway - Highway 400 to Kennedy ...
www.407transitway.com/400ToKennedy/
Subject to the outcome of the study, the 407 Transitway will be implemented initially as bus rapid transit (BRT) with the opportunity to convert to light rail transit ...
407 Transitway - Hurontario Street to Highway 400
www.407transitway.com/hurontarioTo400/
Subject to the outcome of the study, the 407 Transitway will be implemented initially as Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) with the opportunity to convert to Light Rail ...
407 Transitway plan has already missed the bus, Markham councillors ...
www.yorkregion.com › Home › News
May 12, 2016 - The proposed 407 Transitway, still in the planning stages, is already outdated, ... Markham councillors say they'd rather see a plan for light rail.

I can't see the need for RER along that alignment anyway. LRT would pick up what demand there is and deliver it to RER at points along the alignment.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

"Missing Link" was only used in the IBI Report and reference to it. The term is euphemistic. Hopefully we'll find out what the 'discussion' is about.

The 'Missing Link' term started with IBI/the local municipalities. And their key primary goal was to make a business case for freeing up the Milton Line corridor. CP has not been brought on board yet, so I would think that Metrolinx using the term would provide false hope. I'm sure there's also some degree of just using the term being tossed around, and not thinking about it that much (hence maybe why it's in the HuLRT presentation).

The new corridor has been said to give CP and CN two tracks each. IMHO That's an insane amount of capacity at current traffic levels, but it's what the railways would want available for the long term in order to sign up. It doesn't have to all be built right away.

Using the Weston Sub for CP is a non-starter, thanks to the Weston Tunnel. Besides, that capacity is needed for RER and potentially intercity rail. It may be possible to build a connection from the Mactier Sub to the Bypass at Steeles and Islington and run all the CP trains over the bypass and down the MacTier. That would meet the objective of acquiring the Galt Sub without having to buy the North Toronto line at the same time - but would be inconvenient for CP.

- Paul

Using the MacTier is a theoretical good interim measure, but it is also a political landmine and therefore a non-starter. Remember what happened the last time someone proposed an increase of trains through Weston?

I used to live in Weston, and I remember the disturbing roar of CP trains going up the MacTier. I can't imagine adding additional east-west traffic to that.

 

[drum118]

Now I am caught up on my photo editing, I can post some update photos for the question.

The bridge for the CN Torbram Rd Grade Separation is build, but the underpass walls have to be built for the southbound lanes on both sides as well the road before traffic can use this underpass. Real surprise no real work on the Weston Sub bridge, considering it was more advance in construction wise at the beginning of the year than the CN one.

Currently there are 3 CN tracks with one looping to go south on the 4 track Weston Sub (KW Line) and 2 for the Halton Sub. Provision for a 4th track has been built for it and most likely be use for the Intermodal Yard that currently cut off Track 1 on the east side of the road.

If the Milton Bypass to happen, where does the grade separation for the Weston Sub take place??

Since the Weston Sub can be easily lower than the CN lines what impact will it have on the new grade separation for both corridor as well Bramalea GO Station??

By having the grade separation before Bramalea, this would allow GO trains to run on the north side of the Halton Sub and deal with the issue having CN and GO-VIA interfering with each other until the full Bypass is built.

The corridor is wide enough here to support 6 tracks and would require 2 more tracks built for the new overpass down the road.

Nov 27
Halton Sub

KW Line

 

[Allandale25]

Some discussion of the Missing Link/bypass happening in a different thread: http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/thread...-metrolinx-various.9023/page-228#post-1178100

 

[steveintoronto]

Excellent heads up Allandale! I'm there reading it now. For some topics, it's impossible for them not to spill over into adjacent strings, and the By-Pass is the mother of all common rail issues.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Yeah, it's also sometimes one guy mentions the topic and then a feverish discussion erupts in another thread before someone says 'hey, let's move it.'

CN has good reason to sound oppositional just at the moment, although they are likely not truly laying down in opposition. Every aspect of this is currently a negotiation for them. If they point to their competitive advantage over CP as a barrier to sharing the ROW, it's possibly just a leadin to a request for compensation. Nothing wrong with making your case compelling. Everything may have a price.

Beyond competitive advantage, some other things to chew on.

Remember CP approached 2 different railways about a buyout and merger? And both of them told CP to take a hike? I've heard rumors that it was not necessarily telling that to CP as a company, but Harrison as its chief. A lot of media focus was on share prices and board structures, but apparently there's not a lot of love in the industry for his style of managing railways. Remember too that Harrison was CN's former chief.

It should also be pointed out that this is a two-way track (that's a pun): if CN has an accident, it can disrupt CP. Either way, one can disrupt the other, and the one responsible may be liable for damages to property and operations.

 

[steveintoronto]

if CN has an accident, it can disrupt CP. Either way, one can disrupt the other, and the one responsible may be liable for damages to property and operations.

Two points: what is the operating and legal protocol of existing shared trackage? Even if single track, there's approaches that are multi-track.
And what if the consortium formed to build the Link includes both corps, plus more (VIA/Metrolinx)? Liability issues will all be included in the contract, which, btw, can be mandated under the two applicable Acts already detailed and linked? It's also possible that neither CP or CN are included in The Link, but the Feds still mandate that they use it (The pertaining Act is very clear on this power, albeit compensation *may* be forthcoming as a result of that missive)

Not to mention this has never been a problem with TTR, which may be passenger intent, but also handled the two mainlines and (at inception) more than a few other companies accessing the Esplanade RoW in and around Union Station.

 

[Momin]

Update: http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2017/02/missing-link-shaping-future-gtha-rail-network

 

[Fritter]

Forgive me if discussed before, I'm just too lazy to read all 36 pages of the thread. Has anything been said about the leftover portion of the Halton sub between CN Silver in Georgetown and the new junction of the missing link in Milton if this gets completed? Would it be abandoned, used as a freight spur, or used as a new transit route between Georgetown and Milton?

 

[steveintoronto]

Forgive me if discussed before, I'm just too lazy to read all 36 pages of the thread. Has anything been said about the leftover portion of the Halton sub between CN Silver in Georgetown and the new junction of the missing link in Milton if this gets completed? Would it be abandoned, used as a freight spur, or used as a new transit route between Georgetown and Milton?

I don't think it has been discussed, or if so, it would be quite some time back. The RoW would remain for various reasons that some others will detail, I'm sure, but even if not, as a transportation corridor, that RoW would be far too valuable to let go, the Province would buy it.

In the event, even if the Province bought it, it would still host nighttime freight traffic.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Update: http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2017/02/missing-link-shaping-future-gtha-rail-network

@Momin a correction to pass on to whomever wrote the article:

CN's main freight line runs along a subdivision running east-west through the southern portion of York Region—the York Sub—but this subdivision ends just south of Bramalea GO Station. From there, the main line runs through Downtown Brampton to Georgetown, where it veers south towards Milton, and eventually on to Burlington and Hamilton.

CN freight trains would continue straight from the York Sub onto the Missing Link...

The York sub actually ends east of the tracks in and out of CN's MacMillan Yard. West of here, it is the Halton sub, all the way through the junctions south of Bramalea GO (Halwest) and north of Georgetown GO (Silver) down to Burlington.