407 Rail Freight Bypass/The Missing Link

[Allandale25]

So we're skipping the Midtown and Uptown corridors for a Skytown Passenger Corridor?

Would this the connection allow for trains to go from the Barrie Line to Richmond Hill Line? That's a good thing right?

Which connection are you referring to? The Bypass topic for this thread is for a new frieght rail cortucor betwenb Bramalea and Milton. It's from the CN York Sub's western terminus to the CN Halton Sub in Milton. One version would assist the GO Kitchener Line and the other would assist the Kitchener Line and the Milton Line.

 

[gweed123]

So we're skipping the Midtown and Uptown corridors for a Skytown Passenger Corridor?

Would this the connection allow for trains to go from the Barrie Line to Richmond Hill Line? That's a good thing right?

Theoretically the only infrastructure required to do that now would be a connection between the Barrie Line and the York Sub, likely made by expropriating Central Fairbank Lumber, on the SE corner of the diamond. Running on CN tracks between the Barrie and Richmond Hill lines would be another issue though.

 

[Leo_Chan]

Which connection are you referring to? The Bypass topic for this thread is for a new feiehfr rail cortucor betwenb Bramalea and Milton. It's from the CN York Sub's western terminus to the CN Halton Sub in Milton. One version would assist the GO Kitchener Line and the other would assist the Kitchener Line and the Milton Line.

I'm just adding to the quoted replies which suggest having both the 407 bypass as well as "413 - GTA West" as a rail corridor. Which would allow for another East-West rail corridor north of Hwy 407. And maybe extending it to the Stoffville Line as well.

And yes, I understand what the main topic of this thread is, to have a freight bypass along the 407, allowing for GO ownership of the current Kitchener Line section. However, this is just a bit of an off topic discussion.

 

[Leo_Chan]

Theoretically the only infrastructure required to do that now would be a connection between the Barrie Line and the York Sub, likely made by expropriating Central Fairbank Lumber, on the SE corner of the diamond. Running on CN tracks between the Barrie and Richmond Hill lines would be another issue though.

Oh, I didn't mean connecting it there, but that could work too. What I was thinking of was using the GTA West corridor as a rail, and extend it to the Barrie Line. Then, if necessary, it could be extended even further to the Richmond Hill Line, connection south of King City to south of Gormley. However, what I've read on this forum before, was connecting the Barrie Line south of Aurora to north of Bloomington, which may allow for more peak direction trains on the Richmond Hill Line, allowing for potentially more RER trains on the Barrie Line.

 

[RonaldB]

The issue of track capacity Milton-Cambridge is significant, and it stems from today's much longer trains. The Galt Sub used to see a much greater number of shorter trains, but these days it's actually more constrained than ever despite fewer trains. Trains now regularly can be 10,000 to 12,000 feet. There is only one place between Milton and Wolverton where a freight train of that length could be stopped without blocking crossings, and right now that location is single track. While there is a siding at Puslinch (6225 feet) and a decommissioned siding at Killean (6110 feet), running a GO train west of Milton would mean holding all opposing freight traffic of over 6200 feet at Wolverton for a window of roughly one hour prior to the train leaving Milton until shortly before the GO clears at Galt. Extending the Puslinch siding is physically possible but that shaves the timings only partly. And that's with only one freight train in the area. Assume two freights, and the whole problem grows significantly. Assume two GO trains an hour apart in the peak, and the "hold" window gets longer. That's painful for CP's freight.

Allowing the oversize freight to hold the mainline at a siding, letting the GO arrive and enter the siding, and then moving the freight on until the GO can come out the other end....well, that's how CN handles the Canadian out west. We know how well that works.

The issue east of Milton is a little different, ie it's the problem of not being able to run counter-peak trains during the GO peak.

So, regardless of bypass or not, there's no way to reach Cambridge on the Galt Sub without adding track, and/or grade separations.

- Paul

I don't completely agree with all of your statements. I would propose a single test train eastward in morning & westward in evening, to gauge market reaction before adding track. Perhaps extending CTC to the Galt area would be a prerequisite, there's a lot of delay stopping and manually lining switches. I would suggest that one of the Milton trains be extended westward for such a test. Trains following that GO train or opposing it, can use pacing to some extent. That pacing can start well back if necessary. It doesn't take long to run between Guelph Jct and Killean, and opposing movements are the biggest issue. The real problem is the removal of the East switch at Killean & the fact that eastward trains can't leave Orr's Lake until any westward movement west of Killean clears the main track somewhere. The decommissioning of Killean is an issue, because that would have been a logical place for a GO train to enter/exit the main & a good spot for a station. It doesn't make sense to have the former Galt station location as the terminus for GO trains for non railway reasons such as access by road & parking. On the other hand, open land over Samuelson street would be better, especially if a connection to ION LRT could be made. The east wye switch at Galt would have to be turned into a control point to make such a scenario work. If on the other hand, Galt staion would be used, the situation your outlined would apply to some extent. In a post test scenario, Puslinch siding would make a good spot for a station off Hwy 6. I am curious as to why you say that Puslinch can't be extended, wouldn't that be a logical part of double tracking?
If CP senses an opportunity to have their infrastructure beefed up at taxpayer expense, I would think that a bit of accommodation for a test that could lead to double tracking later is worth consideration. Furthermore, the CTC between Milton East and Guelph Jct was paid for by taxpayers and CP is reaping full benefit from it now, they even removed switch heaters years ago and re-positioned them on other lines. The least they can do is accommodate a test.

Another option for a Cambridge service would be to use the former CN Fergus Sub to connect Cambridge to the former CN Guelph Sub at Guelph. If that were to happen, the line would be owned by Metrolinx and could be electrified. If that were to happen, CP would be left to upgrade Galt Sub infrastructure themselves.

 

[crs1026]

^ It's unlikely that GO would implement a one-train service on any route. The cost of buying land and building a station would make this uneconomic on a per seat basis, and it would be an enormously unattractive service to market.

Signalling the existing trackage without a plan for what happens if the service succeeds and more trains are needed is shortsighted. Besides, signalling is not cheap.

The problem I described with Puslinch is just that we've assumed (for want of any real data) that the Highway 6 underpass is only one track wide and would need to be replaced. We may be wrong on that, it's a hard one to access from public property to look. Certainly, an eastwards extension of the Puslinch siding would enable use of Puslinch for long freights - in fact it is the only place between Guelph Jct and Galt where a max-length train could be held for a meet.

I don't have a preferred location for the Galt station, but the studies that have been put forward so far have not favoured that location. Killean siding has a level crossing in the middle that can't be blocked, which is why it is no longer a viable location for a siding. Certainly, one could design a double track segment running westwards from the old east siding switch location, but one could not park a long freight west of that point without blocking crossings either. The key is to have local transit well integrated with the train, and Killean would be a very poor choice in that regard IMHO.

- Paul

 

[RonaldB]

Killean is the second track that begins just southwest of Clyde Road, yes. The switch at the east end was removed a year or two back, so now it is just a secondary track which is only accessed from the west end. It was rated for a maximum train length of 6110 feet, the measured distance between the switch ends would be a little more.

Note that it crossed Dobbie Road at grade. Bond St further west is also a level crossing. These two level crossings set the limits for how long one could have a siding without having to add new grade separation. (Assuming there was a bridge widening in the middle)



I don't know of a regulatory maximum length for trains. There are industry standards for loaded weight and size of individual cars. Every car on the North American system has to be capable of going anywhere on the whole network, so there can't be extra-wide or extra-heavy cars. This regulation is more by the industry itself than by government.

What is regulated is the length of time that a train can block a public railway crossing before the train has to be broken into pieces so cars can get through. That's what's at stake here on the Galt Sub. Taking a train apart only to join it up again is costly and wastes a lot of time, so you don't design the track to stop a train on a crossing unless you have no choice, or if something breaks. The trains on the Galt Sub are now longer than the gaps between roads. So they have to keep moving, or else!

The real limits on train length are practical. Extra length makes it harder to keep the brakes pressurised (there are regulatory standards regarding brakeline pressure). A longer train takes more yard track to put it together at the beginning of the run, and to tie it up at end of run. When something needs done at the rear, it takes a lot longer for a crew member to walk all the way back. And, railway lines aren't totally flat, so a train that is very long may be going uphill at one end and downhill at the other end.... at some point the accordion forces can pull the train apart. Railroads are always trying to solve these challenges - eg by using mid train locomotives. So the railway will generally have guidelines for length for each line or subdivision. But aspirationally, the sky is the limit. If they could run them longer they would, to minimise labour costs and to some degree fuel costs.

The siding lengths were set back in the days of cabooses when trains were shorter. Only some sidings have been lengthened, and operating workarounds have been put in place to deal with the resulting headaches. It is possible to get two 10,000 foot trains to pass each other on a line that only has 6,000 foot sidings, but it's no way to run efficiently. Railways will stand on their heads to avoid spending capital. It's good for the operating ratio, apparently, but it's hugely inflexible.

- Paul

 

[RonaldB]

^ It's unlikely that GO would implement a one-train service on any route. The cost of buying land and building a station would make this uneconomic on a per seat basis, and it would be an enormously unattractive service to market.

Signalling the existing trackage without a plan for what happens if the service succeeds and more trains are needed is shortsighted. Besides, signalling is not cheap.

The problem I described with Puslinch is just that we've assumed (for want of any real data) that the Highway 6 underpass is only one track wide and would need to be replaced. We may be wrong on that, it's a hard one to access from public property to look. Certainly, an eastwards extension of the Puslinch siding would enable use of Puslinch for long freights - in fact it is the only place between Guelph Jct and Galt where a max-length train could be held for a meet.

I don't have a preferred location for the Galt station, but the studies that have been put forward so far have not favoured that location. Killean siding has a level crossing in the middle that can't be blocked, which is why it is no longer a viable location for a siding. Certainly, one could design a double track segment running westwards from the old east siding switch location, but one could not park a long freight west of that point without blocking crossings either. The key is to have local transit well integrated with the train, and Killean would be a very poor choice in that regard IMHO.

- Paul

I disagree, a huge amount of money does not have to be spent to run a test. Testing with limited infrastructure has been done in other areas on CP in the past, RegioSprinter Calgary being one example in 1996.
A station need not be built, just a platform, electrical plug in connection for the train and parking lot. Metrolinx seems to have tons of money to waste as evidenced by their repeated re positioning of train layover locations on both the Milton & Kitchener routes.
There's no reason to think that Cambridge commuters are any less willing to try out an unattractive initial version of a service, than Kitchener commuters who boarded trains for 2+ hr trips to Toronto and only had 2 trains to begin with.
I have not suggested that a test be undertaken without a plan if the service succeeds. If signals are upgraded for a test, and the test is unsuccessful, those signals will still benefit the freight operation. The pitch to CP would include a plan to add trackage as soon as possible after testing IF the test is successful.
Signalling the line from Guelph Jct to Galt would actually be relatively inexpensive. Puslinch has auto normal switches and most if not all signals have been replaced already CTC capable, not a huge deal to change ABS to CTC. I should add that signal changes to south wye at Guelph jct will improve the flow of trains headed south from Toronto and from the single track portion of the Galt Sub to the west. This effectively increases capacity slightly.
The reality is that the need to meet at Puslinch would be minimal. You mentioned longer trains, but there aren't as many of them. Pacing is already in place as an alternative to meets because there are only a few sidings where two long trains can meet. Pacing will avoid the crossing issue so long as trains don't stop. You are correct that there is a time limit blocking crossings, but that applies to being stopped, not in continuous motion.
I agree with you that the Killean location would not be the best in terms of integrating with local transit, however most Cambridge commuters use cars to access either the GO bus service to Milton or they drive there to board the train, and ease of road access at that spot is better than further west. Killean's use a siding may not be practical, but I'm only making the suggestion for GO train access if the east switch is re-installed. That location has been touted in studies for at least 17 years. Local transit can connect by bus to a station at any location.
There is no reason Puslinch couldn't be extended westward, and that would ultimately form part of future double track anyway.
Nonetheless, the existing ABS setup & existing Puslinch siding could be used for a test.
The sad fact is that Metrolinx has a vision for 2 way all day on the Kitchener route, which they feel is more important than basic Cambridge service, and Provincial & Regional politicians are quite happy to ignore Cambridge. The province has the authority to direct Metrolinx under the Metrolinx act, but choose to give them free reign to pursue their 'build it and they will come' approach instead of addressing an existing market.

 

[crs1026]

Metrolinx seems to have tons of money to waste as evidenced by their repeated re positioning of train layover locations on both the Milton & Kitchener routes.

No argument that ML has wasted money.... but that’s my “Plan for success” point. No point building a modest platform or parking lot if it has to be redone within a decade. I think ML may be overbuilding, but only in places. Oshawa is a good example where the old station actually became overcrowded and the new facility is valuable. A Cambridge station might as well start with proper platform height, built in snow melting, proper lighting, and a big enough parking lot for expanded service. And enough bus bays. The minimum cost adds up quick.

There's no reason to think that Cambridge commuters are any less willing to try out an unattractive initial version of a service, than Kitchener commuters who boarded trains for 2+ hr trips to Toronto and only had 2 trains to begin with.

Two trains is the likely minimum. And that is where the operating envelope starts to encroach on freight. Two morning trains spaced an hour apart means no westbounds from Milton for close to two hours.

I have not suggested that a test be undertaken without a plan if the service succeeds. If signals are upgraded for a test, and the test is unsuccessful, those signals will still benefit the freight operation. The pitch to CP would include a plan to add trackage as soon as possible after testing IF the test is successful.

Taking Richmond Hill and Bowmanville as examples, in recent years both railways appear to have insisted on a minimum standard of a single unencumbered track available for freight use over and above whatever track GO occupies. I can’t imagine CP settling for less on this route. While the number of movements in a 24 hour span is modest, CP has to plan for worst case and for growth of traffic. Currently the predawn and morning rush hour slot is actually when Guelph Jct is busiest, with trains due in all directions... just when GO would be in the picture.

Nobody in their right mind would trust ML with a “when we can get to it” pitch with this much capital required. The cheque is in the mail etc.

There is no reason Puslinch couldn't be extended westward, and that would ultimately form part of future double track anyway.
Nonetheless, the existing ABS setup & existing Puslinch siding could be used for a test.
The sad fact is that Metrolinx has a vision for 2 way all day on the Kitchener route, which they feel is more important than basic Cambridge service, and Provincial & Regional politicians are quite happy to ignore Cambridge. The province has the authority to direct Metrolinx under the Metrolinx act, but choose to give them free reign to pursue their 'build it and they will come' approach instead of addressing an existing market.

Neither GO nor CP would believe that service on this route is a ‘test’. Politically, once it is there, it will be virtually impossible to retract. I think we agree that it would actually prove its worth, likely beyond two trains’ worth of ridership. I would like to see the service, but we should not downplay what the investment will be. There is a reason why this is a little way down GO’s to do list. The days of ‘test’ service are over. Go needs to build for real.

- Paul

 

[Allandale25]

Not suggesting this is directly related to the Bypass, but still.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/cn-rail-abruptly-ousts-ceo-luc-jobin-1.3829154

 

[TOareaFan]

Not suggesting this is directly related to the Bypass, but still.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/cn-rail-abruptly-ousts-ceo-luc-jobin-1.3829154

I doubt it is at all related (never mind "directly").....and if I was to guess, if this has any impact on the discussions it will be to set them back....they are a company having issues in their core business.....not sure how much attention a guy brought into fixing that is going to give to some regional passenger rail company that wants to change things up.

 

[Allandale25]

^ Sorry, to clarify, I didn't mean to suggest the CEO was ousted because of anything Bypass related. I actually meant that if there is an indirect link, it could be to your second point which is it could provide a distraction and slow talks down. I'm certainly not in the room so this is all speculation. Just wanted to post it hear because it deals with the rail company the Province is in discussions with.

 

[crs1026]

^ Sorry, to clarify, I didn't mean to suggest the CEO was ousted because of anything Bypass related. I actually meant that if there is an indirect link, it could be to your second point which is it could provide a distraction and slow talks down. I'm certainly not in the room so this is all speculation. Just wanted to post it hear because it deals with the rail company the Province is in discussions with.

At the very least, a significant number of CN managers are out in the field crewing trains. I doubt the leadership team is focussed on much more than treading water. CN is very stressed at the moment.

- Paul

 

[Dan416]

CN used to be quite reliable for us at work. We expected to see the same reliability we had had in the past when we switched back to CN from CP due to some aggressive rates. Unfortunately CN has been quite the disappointment for the past year. If it weren't for the rates, I wish we'd switch back to CP as they provided better customer service by far.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Province to fast-track high-speed rail assessment

A major tidbit in here:

Transportation Minister Kathryn McGarry says the high-speed rail line will use existing rail tracks between Toronto and Waterloo Region, allowing for an expedited planning process.

That means the GO Kitchener line. I had presumed that they would use the Freight bypass/missing link to some degree.