407 Rail Freight Bypass/The Missing Link

[denfromoakvillemilton]

If only it were that simple. Metrolinx doesn't own the Milton line; it's CP's mainline. It does own most or all of the Stouffville, Lakeshore, Barrie, and Kitchener lines. They get much more bang for their buck investing in the lines that they own and control. RER to downtown Hamilton is problematic for the same reason. You're making it sound like they make decisions by throwing darts at a map.

I'm not so sure that the strategy is a bad one. Building the bypass, then encouraging CP to migrate, and then buying the line in its current form might well fit the budget better than an all-out construction program to twin the capacity so that freight and 2-way GO can both use the line.

Sure, every GO line needs some all-day service, but where is the case that says that intensive investment in the Galt Sub would produce the commensurate number of midday riders? The line taps a number of bedroom communties, so peak ridership is enormous.....does that guarantee equal volume at off peak?

Investment in the Newmarket and Stouffville lines may produce more riders for less capital, so it's logical that those are the priorities. And, without getting too political, it would be rash to invest all the available capital in the west side of the GTA but not the north or east.

Of course, when you invest a gob of money in the Weston Sub and then don't run nights and weekends, it's hard to say GO uses its money well, but you get the point.

- Paul

You guys are not wrong at all, but as @robmausser said, they could run more service. They just choose not too. I hope Barrie and Markham get better service as well. I just feel Metrolinx is dragging their feet on all the line. Especially Newmarket, I don't see why they would stop RER at Aurora went they spent all that money on the Davis VIVA line.

 

[steveintoronto]

You guys are not wrong at all, but as @robmausser said, they could run more service. They just choose not too.

How do you know "they could run more service"? It's *CP's* line! The paths may not be available. Usage of that RoW has increased dramatically in the last few decades, and maybe CP is asking a lot more compensation for what little ML is now given. Those charges are not made public.

It's like demanding to rent a car when it's already booked-up. When the By-Pass is built, and that line (or most of it) no longer hosts freight during ML operating times, that problem no longer exists. VIA has the same problem with many CN routes.

Until that happens, CP can do whatever they like with the line save for an appeal to Transport Canada. And that's not going to happen.

 

[crs1026]

There have been track and schedule changes since that schedule was in place that make it impractical today. The current headway of peak period trains prevents turnback movements on the north track between Mississauga and Dixie. And, there is no longer double track between West Toronto and Union. (although it may be double tracked again eventually.).

I doubt that the one reverse direction train at rush hour garnered that much revenue, and it would have been an impediment to freight. What that schedule represents is not two way service but simply a better equipment utilisation (single trainset making two peak runs, versus one run per trainset today). One has to assume that GO has explored paying CP a lump sum in return for restoring that pattern and CP didn't bite - if the current schedule were run with two turnback equipment moves, GO could share the capital offset with CP and still come out ahead. It's CP's line, and they have every right to protect their interests.

- Paul

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

There have been track and schedule changes since that schedule was in place that make it impractical today. The current headway of peak period trains prevents turnback movements on the north track between Mississauga and Dixie. And, there is no longer double track between West Toronto and Union. (although it may be double tracked again eventually.).

I doubt that the one reverse direction train at rush hour garnered that much revenue, and it would have been an impediment to freight. What that schedule represents is not two way service but simply a better equipment utilisation (single trainset making two peak runs, versus one run per trainset today). One has to assume that GO has explored paying CP a lump sum in return for restoring that pattern and CP didn't bite - if the current schedule were run with two turnback equipment moves, GO could share the capital offset with CP and still come out ahead. It's CP's line, and they have every right to protect their interests.

- Paul

How do you know "they could run more service"? It's *CP's* line! The paths may not be available. Usage of that RoW has increased dramatically in the last few decades, and maybe CP is asking a lot more compensation for what little ML is now given. Those charges are not made public.

It's like demanding to rent a car when it's already booked-up. When the By-Pass is built, and that line (or most of it) no longer hosts freight during ML operating times, that problem no longer exists. VIA has the same problem with many CN routes.

Until that happens, CP can do whatever they like with the line save for an appeal to Transport Canada. And that's not going to happen.

What would be faster, the bypass or double track to Milton?

 

[steveintoronto]

What would be faster, the bypass or double track to Milton?

That would depend on many factors, most of which are not presented here.

The real question is "What would give the most return per investment?" And beyond any other major rail project possible in the GTHA, it would be the By-Pass. It would have *manifold* benefits for all number of expensive and complicated challenges, and actually pay for itself many times over. IIRC, the IBI report equated the cost of the By-Pass being roughly equal to what it would cost to upgrade the K-W line in lieu of it. That may be optimistic, but considering it would liberate all manner of other lines, for the $5B touted (I think twice that) it would be a bargain.

Is there a lot more work involved in doing the By-Pass compared to Milton CP RoW expansion? Absolutely, but "faster" is misleading, as it all depends on how diligently it's done.

Yes, ML are dragging their heels, on a lot of things, electrification alone is still a theory, but if the By-Pass is announced soon, then much of that foot-dragging can be forgiven, as much of the work would have been proven redundant. However, I'm loathe to forgive ML for being such laggards.

Because the Missing Link is such an obvious and overwhelmingly cathartic concept, and would pay for itself in many ways, I have faith that it will get built. That faith may be misplaced....we'll see.

 

[jys]

What would be faster, the bypass or double track to Milton?

Construction wise, the Missing Link(with 2 tracks) would be a lot faster and cheaper as it will be built on the 407 greenbelt. But CN and CP are going to cash grab if you want to move them to the Missing Link. Also, theoretically 2 tracks would be enough for the Missing Link as freight trains run at the same speed, but Metrolinx is proposing to built 4 tracks to appease them so they can both have 2 tracks each, which means extra cost and time.

 

[steveintoronto]

Construction wise, the Missing Link(with 2 tracks) would be a lot faster and cheaper as it will be built on the 407 greenbelt.

Only part of it. There's still large parts to do across the top of Toronto to Pickering, and switches and overpasses. The build speed is dependent on how much is applied to doing it as well as distance.

CN and CP are going to cash grab if you want to move them to the Missing Link.

Not necessarily. If this is a Metrolinx led project, they will have the powers in the Transportation and Relocations Acts for TC to set the rate of compensation. But I don't think that will be necessary, beyond CN and CP trying to get the best deal, and then being told what they will get, and how that's all part of a massive exchange of values. Done right, *everyone* comes out ahead on this, way ahead, so CN and CP would be very unwise to be obstinate. There's examples in the past where this has been done. (Ottawa, for instance) Although existing powers are more than adequate (some of the extant powers are close to omnipotent, albeit court appeals are always possible) it might be best to write a new Act in Parliament to cover this project.

theoretically 2 tracks would be enough for the Missing Link as freight trains run at the same speed, but Metrolinx is proposing to built 4 tracks to appease them so they can both have 2 tracks each, which means extra cost and time.

I agree, two tracks as common carriers, and private sidings for CN and CP where necessary as leads into their yards. With modern control and signalling, for *freight only* (no catenary) this should do it. Examples of combined track use in the US do well with just two tracks. The concern will be with trains backing up getting into and out of yards, thus added sidings where necessary.

Metrolinx is proposing to built 4 tracks to appease them so they can both have 2 tracks each, which means extra cost and time.

If ML is proposing that, it might be revisited. And well it should. For passenger, yes, I can understand that, but for passenger, a single track with passing sidings might be apt. (with catenary and fly-overs of the freight turn-offs and switches)

I suspect this won't be led by ML, just instigated. It will be a consortium in which most likely CN and CP are major partners along with private investment and Metrolinx. Done with the Infrastructure Bank, it would have the powers of the various federal Acts to 'discipline' the partners to agree. Courts are always a recourse, but agreement can be made before entering the consortium that all will follow the Acts for the best and fastest outcome for all.

An excellent example is already set on this with Toronto Terminals Railways. Although held by just CN and CP (CN through predecessor companies) it might provide a business vehicle already established and functioning for almost a century for CP and CN to participate in the By-Pass Consortium.

About TTR
Toronto Terminals Railway Co. Ltd. is the operating railway responsible for safe, effective and efficient movement of passenger & freight trains throughout the Union Station Railway Corridor (USRC). As the certificate of fitness holder for the USRC, TTR ensures the company meets Transport Canada’s as well as Metrolinx operating guidelines and policies.

TTR also manages the train marshalling operations at Deltaport’s global container terminal, one of Canada’s busiest intermodal yards on Canada’s West Coast part of Port Metro Vancouver juridiction.

TTR is a jointly owned subsidiary of both Canadian National Railway (CN) and Canadian Pacific Railway (CP), allowing the company to benefit from the best practices and guidance of the two largest railways in Canada.

TTR operates through 9 service groups that work in unison to deliver the highest quality program to GO Transit and its customers. These services are: [...]

http://ttrly.com/about/about-ttr/

Edit to Add: One of the little mentioned but very important products of the Missing Link would be the MidTown Line:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midtown_corridor

For all the talk of how the B-D subway line needs all sorts of impending expansion at $Billions, this would be another very useful *express* routes across mid-Toronto rendering B-D upgrade (beyond present up-keep and signalling) redundant. There's even room for two LRT tracks for serving local stops along the way, while VIA and/or GO just serve the major interchanges.

It would also radically alter the needed configuration of the Relief Line and other projected plans. In fact, the Missing Link changes almost everything, for the better.

 

[drum118]

How do you know "they could run more service"? It's *CP's* line! The paths may not be available. Usage of that RoW has increased dramatically in the last few decades, and maybe CP is asking a lot more compensation for what little ML is now given. Those charges are not made public.

It's like demanding to rent a car when it's already booked-up. When the By-Pass is built, and that line (or most of it) no longer hosts freight during ML operating times, that problem no longer exists. VIA has the same problem with many CN routes.

Until that happens, CP can do whatever they like with the line save for an appeal to Transport Canada. And that's not going to happen.

The line was to be 3 tracks to Milton by 2011 and some where along the line, only a few sections saw 3 tracks built. So how is it not a fact that CP was willing to add more track so GO could run more service a decade ago?

As to who and why the work was stop is unknown, but sure it was GO most likely due to lack of funds.

If Wynne live up to her platform on transit back in 2014, a good portion of the corridor would be 4 tracks today and well on its way for 2021 completion date with a new fly under from south to north at Humber River. CP can live with this 4 tracks setup since ML tracks will not interferer with their service. ML will have to relocate a few stations platforms.

People can dream of this bypass, but most of us will be long gone before it happens

 

[steveintoronto]

From Transit Toronto
GO Transit's Milton Line
(Last Modified on August 18, 2016 11:58 AM)
Text by Daniel Garcia and James Bow

[...]
Pressure to expand Milton GO train service comes from two sources: demand from the residents of Milton and Mississauga wishing to avoid traffic congestion on Highways 401 and 403 as well as passenger congestion on the Lakeshore GO line, and demand from the residents and politicians of Waterloo Region, particularly Cambridge, looking to improve their connections with the Greater Toronto Area. Resisting this pressure are the owners of Canadian Pacific, who see GO Trains as a potentially unwelcome obstacle to their freight movements.

It is important to note that, with the exception of the Milton GO Train line, all GO Train service operates on tracks that GO either leased or bought from Canadian National, or which it built itself. GO Transit's Lakeshore line uses CN's Oakville and Kingston subdivisions which, in the 1960s, saw a significant decline in traffic as CN opened up its MacMillan freight yard north of Metropolitan Toronto, and its York Sub bypassing the Lakeshore tracks from Oakville to Pickering. Very quickly, GO Transit became CN's biggest customer on CN's Lakeshore tracks, and CN was willing to accommodate GO Transit's needs, first in offering train time, and then in selling parts of its track network. Although GO Transit had to add additional tracks in order to expand service west from Oakville and east from Pickering on the Lakeshore line, they were largely able to expand service because CN did not see GO Transit as a threat or an obstacle to their freight traffic. Similar situations exist for GO Transit's Kitchener, Barrie and Stouffville lines.

In contrast, Canadian Pacific's Galt sub through Mississauga and across the City of Toronto is its only main line between Toronto, London and Windsor. There is no bypass for CP's freight traffic to divert onto. GO Transit has had to spend a considerable amount of money adding rails in order to obtain the service it currently has. So while GO would like to offer midday two-way service on the Milton line again, improving service to Mississauga, and possibly augmenting Bloor-Danforth subway service through Toronto, negotiations with Canadian Pacific have proved frustrating, and the expansion of service has proven to be prohibitively costly. Add in provincial interest in a rail link between Union Station and Pearson International Airport, and one can see why much of GO Transit's rail construction work has focused on expanding track capacity and service on the Weston Sub between Toronto and Bramalea, especially after Metrolinx was able to purchase the Weston Sub from Canadian National for $109 million.
[...]

http://transit.toronto.on.ca/regional/2104.shtml

I put my hopes on the Missing Link.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

That would depend on many factors, most of which are not presented here.

The real question is "What would give the most return per investment?" And beyond any other major rail project possible in the GTHA, it would be the By-Pass. It would have *manifold* benefits for all number of expensive and complicated challenges, and actually pay for itself many times over. IIRC, the IBI report equated the cost of the By-Pass being roughly equal to what it would cost to upgrade the K-W line in lieu of it. That may be optimistic, but considering it would liberate all manner of other lines, for the $5B touted (I think twice that) it would be a bargain.

Is there a lot more work involved in doing the By-Pass compared to Milton CP RoW expansion? Absolutely, but "faster" is misleading, as it all depends on how diligently it's done.

Yes, ML are dragging their heels, on a lot of things, electrification alone is still a theory, but if the By-Pass is announced soon, then much of that foot-dragging can be forgiven, as much of the work would have been proven redundant. However, I'm loathe to forgive ML for being such laggards.

Because the Missing Link is such an obvious and overwhelmingly cathartic concept, and would pay for itself in many ways, I have faith that it will get built. That faith may be misplaced....we'll see.

Construction wise, the Missing Link(with 2 tracks) would be a lot faster and cheaper as it will be built on the 407 greenbelt. But CN and CP are going to cash grab if you want to move them to the Missing Link. Also, theoretically 2 tracks would be enough for the Missing Link as freight trains run at the same speed, but Metrolinx is proposing to built 4 tracks to appease them so they can both have 2 tracks each, which means extra cost and time.

Only part of it. There's still large parts to do across the top of Toronto to Pickering, and switches and overpasses. The build speed is dependent on how much is applied to doing it as well as distance.

Not necessarily. If this is a Metrolinx led project, they will have the powers in the Transportation and Relocations Acts for TC to set the rate of compensation. But I don't think that will be necessary, beyond CN and CP trying to get the best deal, and then being told what they will get, and how that's all part of a massive exchange of values. Done right, *everyone* comes out ahead on this, way ahead, so CN and CP would be very unwise to be obstinate. There's examples in the past where this has been done. (Ottawa, for instance) Although existing powers are more than adequate (some of the extant powers are close to omnipotent, albeit court appeals are always possible) it might be best to write a new Act in Parliament to cover this project.

I agree, two tracks as common carriers, and private sidings for CN and CP where necessary as leads into their yards. With modern control and signalling, for *freight only* (no catenary) this should do it. Examples of combined track use in the US do well with just two tracks. The concern will be with trains backing up getting into and out of yards, thus added sidings where necessary.
If ML is proposing that, it might be revisited. And well it should. For passenger, yes, I can understand that, but for passenger, a single track with passing sidings might be apt. (with catenary and fly-overs of the freight turn-offs and switches)

I suspect this won't be led by ML, just instigated. It will be a consortium in which most likely CN and CP are major partners along with private investment and Metrolinx. Done with the Infrastructure Bank, it would have the powers of the various federal Acts to 'discipline' the partners to agree. Courts are always a recourse, but agreement can be made before entering the consortium that all will follow the Acts for the best and fastest outcome for all.

An excellent example is already set on this with Toronto Terminals Railways. Although held by just CN and CP (CN through predecessor companies) it might provide a business vehicle already established and functioning for almost a century for CP and CN to participate in the By-Pass Consortium.


http://ttrly.com/about/about-ttr/

Edit to Add: One of the little mentioned but very important products of the Missing Link would be the MidTown Line:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midtown_corridor

For all the talk of how the B-D subway line needs all sorts of impending expansion at $Billions, this would be another very useful *express* routes across mid-Toronto rendering B-D upgrade (beyond present up-keep and signalling) redundant. There's even room for two LRT tracks for serving local stops along the way, while VIA and/or GO just serve the major interchanges.

It would also radically alter the needed configuration of the Relief Line and other projected plans. In fact, the Missing Link changes almost everything, for the better.

The line was to be 3 tracks to Milton by 2011 and some where along the line, only a few sections saw 3 tracks built. So how is it not a fact that CP was willing to add more track so GO could run more service a decade ago?

As to who and why the work was stop is unknown, but sure it was GO most likely due to lack of funds.

If Wynne live up to her platform on transit back in 2014, a good portion of the corridor would be 4 tracks today and well on its way for 2021 completion date with a new fly under from south to north at Humber River. CP can live with this 4 tracks setup since ML tracks will not interferer with their service. ML will have to relocate a few stations platforms.

People can dream of this bypass, but most of us will be long gone before it happens

I take it the missing link may be much faster for construction. But we don't know when it will start. I bet it would take less than a year to add two more tracks on the CP galt sub and it would cost less than the missing link!

 

[drum118]

I take it the missing link may be much faster for construction. But we don't know when it will start. I bet it would take less than a year to add two more tracks on the CP galt sub and it would cost less than the missing link!

What world would it take 1 year to add 2 tracks to the Galt Sub??

You got to built new extension to existing bridges for those new tracks to the point some bridges will have to be rebuilt to support the 4 tracks. You need to clear cut the existing ROW before you can look at grading it for the extra tracks to the point some of the existing tracks may have to be move.

It will take a year to build the new fly-under at Humber River and this will require CP shutting the mainline for 48 hours similar to the West Toronto Diamond bridges.

The cost was about $2 Billion and was to be done in 4-5 years.

What happens to the current grade crossing?? Trying to do something for Mississauga Rd crossing will be very costly as well take years to build it after about 18 months EA study.

Erindale and Kipling Stations are setup and ready for centre platform today. Lisgar is built to be a centre platform, but requires walkway tunnels and elevators. All the others require major work with Cookvilles being more advance.

 

[Allandale25]

Can't recall if this was posted so apologies if it was:

"Legal agreement should be finalized soon, should hear some updates "soon" Del Duca told me"

twitter.com/andreabellemare/status/865657023219679232

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Can't recall if this was posted so apologies if it was:

"Legal agreement should be finalized soon, should hear some updates "soon" Del Duca told me"

twitter.com/andreabellemare/status/865657023219679232

Trotted out in time before the election.

 

[steveintoronto]

Can't recall if this was posted so apologies if it was:

"Legal agreement should be finalized soon, should hear some updates "soon" Del Duca told me"

twitter.com/andreabellemare/status/865657023219679232

I deferred from commenting as it could only be cynical. I don't recall that being posted, it is an interesting link for the string of tweets that went with that comment. It's not even clear if he's commenting on the 'full' Missing Link or the 'CN only' By-Pass.

 

[smallspy]

The line was to be 3 tracks to Milton by 2011 and some where along the line, only a few sections saw 3 tracks built.

According to whom?

Because there was never any EA, or funding, allocated to such a project.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.