SaugeenJunction
Senior Member
Data driven. I like that. I have high hopes for this.
|
|
|
Metrolinx: Other Items (catch all)
- Thread starter TheTigerMaster
- Start date
Data driven. I like that. I have high hopes for this.
Neutrino
Senior Member
We need more service, not more marketing.
hw621
Senior Member
It mentioned non transit revenue...
Neutrino
Senior Member
Yeah, yeah, I know. But most of the piece seemed to be about factors other than service levels.
hw621
Senior Member
I need more frequent and affordable services on Stouffville Line
crs1026
Senior Member
Not quite. In 2025 we will have a ragtag collection of projects that will have reached completion, and we will have some things that didn't get done and other things that are just poking along.
What are the three top most urgent things that need to be addressed today, that are holding stuff up and putting 2025 in jeopardy?
1) The design for the flyover at Scarboro Jct. (It should be apparent by now that a "flat" junction at SJ would be hugely constraining on capacity. You won't see current VIA service, plus planned GO LSE service, plus planned GO/ST service to Unionville.) No EA in the works, no sensitization of the neighbourhood that a Davenport-style overpass or some major tunnelling are coming. No sign ML has even reached a preferred solution.
2) The power supply lines and substation feeding electrification at Union Station, and the catenary itself in downtown Toronto, and to the maintenance base. No wires (with power) at USRC, no electrification anywhere
3) The Bramalea-Georgetown solution with CN, whatever it might be.
4).....OK, Four things. A plan for service from Bayview to Hamilton, whatever it might be.
Without these three, um, four, things, 2025 is just a dream. All of these are long lead time. If they aren't being worked on today, schedules will slip.
- Paul
44 North
Senior Member
This is an interesting point. I've never thought about Scarb Junction needing grade-separation, nor heard about it being needed. I guess I don't really get why it would require grade-separation. If Stouff RER/ST is using the northernmost tracks, seems like LSE and VIA would be unaffected from a stop/proceed perspective. Granted I don't know how many tracks are envisioned at full buildout, nor how close these things can run.
If a separation is needed through there, which I can guess it is, it would likely be combined with a road/rail grade-separation @ Danforth Rd. This would be like a +1000m guideway or tunnel. Big bucks, many pitchforks, and seemingly quite complicated (since Stouff is somewhat narrow, the curvature, and all lines are active). Clearly politically unpalatable so maybe that's a reason Mlinx hasn't divulged much about it.
crs1026
Senior Member
Here's the issue I see. The general spec we are hearing is, 4 tracks west of the Junction, 3 east on LSE, and 2 north to Unionville.
The service pattern at peak spec we are hearing - in each direction - is roughly
10 Unionville trains/hour - 6 ST/local, 4 express
8 local LSE trains/hour - 7.5 min headway
4 Oshawa-Bowmanville LSE express trains/hour - 15 min headway
1-2 VIA trains/hour - even with HFR there will still be local trains, and some will run at peak
A 'flat' junction will handle this volume, perhaps, but will require a lot of use of crossovers. Every time a crossover is used, that second track's route is blocked for 3-4 minutes minimum. A train on a conflicting route will encounter restrictive signals and begin to slow down well ahead of the junction, until the opposing movement has passed. Ten crossing movements at even three minutes' advance clearing = 30 minutes of restriction per hour.
One solution is to use a non-uniform direction of traffic for each track - eg put the eastbound moves to Unionville on the northmost track - but now think through where platforms would have to be located between Union and Scarborough.
A 'flyover' junction - as is common in the Northeast US and in other parts of the world - would be a lot more elegant and would remove much of the crossover conflicts. This would allow a standard slow/fast format to the four tracks with 'slow' (stopping) on the outside. The flyover would be fed from the two southmost tracks, with a short segment of a fifth track so that a local train could clear the "slow" (red) line and stop clear of the feed from the "fast" (green) track so that an overtaking 'express' train could pass through first, without having the local train block the 'slow' line until it has a clear path onto the Stouffville line.
(I'm sure @steve will instruct us about the high-tech solutions used elsewhere, and frankly many old style signal box operations manage this, but my point is, why design the system with constraining features in the first place and then try to work around with electronics?)
This is all amateur design, but if I were building this in my basement, I would argue for the overpass. The fact that ML has paused with construction south of Kennedy makes me think that they haven't made a firm decision, either.
The biggest point is - a high performing project manager would realise that this question is material and drive to have it confirmed, one way or the other, early on so that work does not pause. With ML, decisions like this get avoided or debated well into critical path, putting the overall project schedule at risk. And, local residents, who never thought that they would see trains passing over their back yards on a flyover, will be told that this is not up for debate - the project is now behind schedule and there is no time for proper consultation without holding things up. #Davenport
- Paul
PS - yeah, my computer graphics skills wouldn't pass Kindergarten, sorry!
Attachments
Last edited:
steveintoronto
Superstar
A flat junction creates all sorts of problems even if it isn't fouling other traffic, not least the required slow speed to negotiate. The major determining factor must be the cost of the fly-over/under v. the interval of use expected. I would have to wonder on where to build it though, and whether building it further west would allow it to do double duty with another cut-off. The downside of that would be running another track the distance between points.
Addendum: The weight of the consists would also be an important factor. If EMUs are to be used to achieve the time interval projected for x-over, then compared to diesel loco-hauled, the structure could be lighter, something like as used for the Pearson Express ramps into the airport.
Perhaps this is why there's a lack of detail on this? ML is still sitting on the fence for their 'future vision' and until it is settled, there's a knock-on effect for so much nuance necessary for other projects. EMU would also allow a much steeper ramp angle than diesel hauled consists.
Switches could still be in place for flat x-over for consists weighing too much for the fly-over. This is common practise in other places, especially for temporal freight. San Diego Trolley immediately comes to mind from my experience.
Last edited:
drum118
Superstar
If you wanted to do it right from day one and look to the future, LS Lines should be 4 track 100% and you need X crossing on all track every X distance as high speed ones.
Its been years since I have looked at the area, but the corridor itself will support 4 tracks easy.
There is enough land west of the junction to have 6 tracks and this will allow Stouffville 2 tracks to remain on the north side as it is today as a single track. Scarborough Station will have to be rebuilt for centre platform and most likely relocate the station itself. The current tunnel would have to be rebuilt to deal with centre platforms as well add elevators.
If you want to connect only to track #4 on the south side, you can build a single to double track flyover using less land for Scarborough Station area, but at a higher cost.
Its possible a building or 2 may have to go for what I am proposing.
Its been years since I have looked at the area, but the corridor itself will support 4 tracks easy.
There is enough land west of the junction to have 6 tracks and this will allow Stouffville 2 tracks to remain on the north side as it is today as a single track. Scarborough Station will have to be rebuilt for centre platform and most likely relocate the station itself. The current tunnel would have to be rebuilt to deal with centre platforms as well add elevators.
If you want to connect only to track #4 on the south side, you can build a single to double track flyover using less land for Scarborough Station area, but at a higher cost.
Its possible a building or 2 may have to go for what I am proposing.
crs1026
Senior Member
It's not clear to me whether the plan for ST on the Stouffville line means this will be the stopping service for the section through Danforth Station (plus whatever new stations ST might generate).
If so, would it make sense for all LSE trains to run express from Scarboro to Union. That makes it possible to have totally separate tracks west of Scarboro Jct for LSE, and if no trains are stopping perhaps two is all one needs for LSE.
If both LSE and Stouffville trains need to stop along the way, it will be awfully confusing for Danforth passengers to have one platform for LSE and another for Stouffville - which one do I stand on to catch the next train to Union? I suspect the intent is for traffic to interleave so that whatever train comes first is available.
- Paul
SaugeenJunction
Senior Member
I was bored an realized that Metrolinx has their 2018/2019 procurement plan posted online, in other words projects that they intend to put to tender. Really interesting read, and some nice little nuggets of info. Link here. Found via this page.
Of note are (posted as listed in doc):
Of note are (posted as listed in doc):
- Weston Tunnel 3rd Platform
- Freight By-pass
- Customer Wi-Fi Solution
- Electric Bus Tender
- Smart Train Solution
- PRESTO Voucher Pilot
- Union Station Master Plan
- Durham-Scarborough Preliminary Design and Preliminary Design Business Case
- Eglinton West LRT Planning and Design
- Dundas BRT Preliminary Design and Preliminary Design Business Case
- Barrie Double Track - Contract 2, Barrie Double Track - Contract 3
- Heritage Rd Layover facility
- Georgetown Station and Layover
- 3rd Track (Carlingview to Halton Sub)
- 4th Track Construction - Strachan to Nickle
- South Stouffville Grade Separation
- (Various RER packages)
- Guelph Sub Track and Signal Maintenance
- Concrete Tie Replacement Program - Newmarket
- Bala Subdivision Flood Mitigations
- Concrete Tie Replacement Program - Exhibition
- Guelph Sub Capital Improvements
- Canpa Plant Rehabilitation
- Niagara Expansion
- Light Geometry Inspection Vehicle
- Pre-qualification for Locomotive refurb
- Pre-qualification for Bi-level refurb
hw621
Senior Member
What is south Stouffville grade separation?
steveintoronto
Superstar
It would be interesting to see a cost comparison of doing a flyover v more running tracks. It's always been my impression travelling west that there's capacity for at least one more track in the corridor. Your observation of two more is very interesting.
Fritter
Active Member
I may be wrong, but I believe it might be the grade separation of the tracks from Hoover Park Dr. in the south end of Stouffville.