lenaitch
Senior Member
First you need to buy it (or part of it) from a willing seller - or expropriate. I'm not too sure the state would be willing to (or even can) expropriate on behalf of a competing carrier.
|
|
|
407 Rail Freight Bypass/The Missing Link
- Thread starter dunkalunk
- Start date
Bordercollie
Senior Member
You don't need to take over the York sub. You could build beside it.
It all depends on how much of the ROW the railway owns and who owns the area around/beside it.
If it's crown land then the railway can't stop them. Also does the province own the land that the 407 is on? Or was that also sold to the company that operates it?
If the government owns the land surrounding the 407 then they can build a railway if they please.
It would be cheaper to have bus rapid transit along Highway 7 without detrouring to Promenade, but not the 77 bus because it makes local stops. So from Vaughan station along the busway to Yonge Street without turning at Bathurst. That should make ride times shorter by 30min.
But it could serve local stops like Keele, Dufferin/centre St, and Bathurst, Thornhill Woods and then Yonge Street. You would need a bus lane going west towards Bathurst since currently only the eastbound land has a bus lane from Bathurst to Yonge Street.
This is different from GO's 407 west route since it makes some stops along the way.
lenaitch
Senior Member
Referring to the York sub. I am assuming CN owns fenceline to fenceline.
Bordercollie
Senior Member
Since most of the bridges and the eastern portion of the York sub is single tracked. They may be interested in sharing the corridor if public money is spent to improve their corridor. Like the Kingston Sub.
drum118
Superstar
Any thought of share corridor will not be built on CN and CP dime, but on someone else dime period.
CN has already invested money in the subs to improve movement of their train to help them to move more train that are longer and will come longer that effect both VIA Rail and GO.
CN is current expanding tracks in Burlington that will require another bridge over Plains Rd. CN needs an extension to the 4th track as well a 5th for Bayview Junction area, but an environment issue.
The current ROW is fence to fence that will have to be upgraded to 3/4 tracks to be use by both RR.
A fair number of bridges will have to be rebuilt to get clearance height for 4 tracks. There will have to be a number of grade separations be done to reduce the increase of train traffic as well sound barrier walls..
It will take a few decades to fully rebuild the CN corridor to allow both RR to run in the same corridor assuming CP is open to the idea It will cost 10's of billions to do it and who has the money to do it today??
If and when CP moves the Agincourt Yard to a new east location, they could buy in on using CN Corridor if it faster than it is now to get across Toronto and Mississauga.
I expect a small area will be retain at Agincourt current location to handle local switching been done by the Lambton Yard that will finally cease operation after 150 years or more when it close.
If it wasn't for the fact trains are 2 to 3 times longer than they were 30 years ago, it would be a bitch today getting more GO trains on line like they have so far, let alone what is needed.
SashaLemon
Active Member
This needed to be built yesterday.
You would think GO Expansion is so large it could fit this project in there as well...
You would think GO Expansion is so large it could fit this project in there as well...
Bordercollie
Senior Member
The Belleville sub is proposed to be used as a mid town corridor. What they should do is connect the east and west portions of Line 1 and make it a loop using the 407 corridor.
Northern Light
Superstar
Both ends of Line 1 are likely to be extended to Major Mack in the late 2030s
lenaitch
Senior Member
Except for the "billions" part.
Bojaxs
Active Member
Construction on the Goreway Drive, bridge in Malton has started. I can't find anything that says the opening underneath the bridge will be wide enough to accommodate extra tracks. If the bridge is built to only accommodate CN's existing tracks, then is it fair to say the "missing link" is dead for CP?
EDIT: Now that I think about it. If CN is helping to fund the construction of this bridge (alongside the government), how would they feel seeing CP trains going underneath it?
www1.brampton.ca
EDIT: Now that I think about it. If CN is helping to fund the construction of this bridge (alongside the government), how would they feel seeing CP trains going underneath it?
Goreway Drive Grade Seperation
Last edited:
innsertnamehere
Superstar
They almost always build these overpasses for a few extra tracks. I wouldn’t be concerned.
Northern Light
Superstar
Construction on the Goreway Drive, bridge in Malton has started. I can't find anything that says the opening underneath the bridge will be wide enough to accommodate extra tracks. If the bridge is built to only accommodate CN's existing tracks, then is it fair to say the "missing link" is dead for CP?
EDIT: Now that I think about it. If CN is helping to fund the construction of this bridge (alongside the government), how would they feel seeing CP trains going underneath it?
Goreway Drive Grade Seperation
I looked it up, here:
https://www1.brampton.ca/EN/residen...nal esr and appendicies-080512-compressed.pdf page 75
From the above:
Built with 3 tracks and room for a fourth.
Render:
Bojaxs
Active Member
A fourth track, which would be owned by CN. Which would mean no space for CP tracks.
I work for CN rail at the Brampton intermodal yard. Engines sit idle right before the crossing here after we've connected/ built the train. We then have someone drive the crew from the yard, along Steeles and down Goreway towards the idling engine. Hence the roadway beside the bridge. If CP trains were allowed to pass through the York sub, it would interfere with this process. CN wouldn't want their conductors waiting for a CP train to pass before being able to board.
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
If this alignment were part of a future missing middle, four tracks are sufficient for purpose.
The entire York sub is owned by CN today, and there would be no change in ownership until there is a change in ownership (if applicable); or a co-production agreement were put in place or w/e other solution brought forward.
There is no need to allow for 5 or 6 tracks here.
Bojaxs
Active Member
CN won't allow CP on those tracks. Aside from blocking the crews trying to access their train. Allowing CP trains through here would impede CN moving trains into and out of the Malport yard.