|
|
|
Caledon-Vaughan GO Rail Line
- Thread starter Prometheus The Supremo
- Start date
crs1026
Superstar
I wonder what the good people of Weston would say about the proposal to run a GO train - diesel most likely - running by every 7.5 minutes on the surface beside the tunnel that was built to avoid having a GO train or UP Express train (It was Blue 24 back then) running by on the surface every 7.5 minutes.
- Paul
- Paul
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Most likely "new" GO Train lines, like the Bolton line, will have to be electric from day one.
crs1026
Superstar
I suppose it's possible to create a branch off the Kitchener Line at the north end of the Weston Flyunder so that Bolton GO trains would not have to run on the surface through Weston. The cost would be substantial.
That new connection might necessitate a grade separation at Oak Street, I'm not sure how the elevation works through there. The Kitchener line is already climbing westwards so the gradient required would not be as many feet of height as the full tunnel. But it would really mess up traffic patterns on the Kitchener line. if trains had to cross over there
North of Steeles on the Bolton line there is a 2.2km stretch in which there are five single-track bridges. Doubling that segment would be very pricey.
All of those costs, plus the absurdity of running 15-minute headways on the surface next to a 4-track tunnel that was built to avoid that disruption, plus the lack of density (so far) towards Bolton, makes me think that a 15-minute RER service is fanciful. More likely just Richmond Hill-quality commuter service to start, and perhaps hourly 2WAD eventually. Even that may be fanciful - ML likely is reevaluating its ridership modelling in light of continued WFH changes. I'm not sure that even peak loads are all that compelling post-covid. The cost per rider will be quite high.
But hey, there's plenty of Greenbelt and farmland up that way, so development will happen - so long as Doug is with us, anyways.
- Paul
That new connection might necessitate a grade separation at Oak Street, I'm not sure how the elevation works through there. The Kitchener line is already climbing westwards so the gradient required would not be as many feet of height as the full tunnel. But it would really mess up traffic patterns on the Kitchener line. if trains had to cross over there
North of Steeles on the Bolton line there is a 2.2km stretch in which there are five single-track bridges. Doubling that segment would be very pricey.
All of those costs, plus the absurdity of running 15-minute headways on the surface next to a 4-track tunnel that was built to avoid that disruption, plus the lack of density (so far) towards Bolton, makes me think that a 15-minute RER service is fanciful. More likely just Richmond Hill-quality commuter service to start, and perhaps hourly 2WAD eventually. Even that may be fanciful - ML likely is reevaluating its ridership modelling in light of continued WFH changes. I'm not sure that even peak loads are all that compelling post-covid. The cost per rider will be quite high.
But hey, there's plenty of Greenbelt and farmland up that way, so development will happen - so long as Doug is with us, anyways.
- Paul
Northern Light
Superstar
A look at elevations for Paul
Visually first:
Below is Piggott Mews, at the top of the image (straight'ish) is MacTier, on the right is K-W)
Parke Street is the opposite side of the K-W corridor:
Now we're back on the north/east side, and looking MacTier from further south (Queenslea)
Now the overhead view, with contour lines (elevation change between any 2 lines is equal to 1M )
Lets look further on to Oak Street:
Big ROW at Oak Street for MacTier: (looking south)
Your distance btw Oak Street and the K-W corridor is just a smidge over 300M
dowlingm
Senior Member
If the platform layout at Weston is as Wikipedia shows it (a diagram by @reaperexpress I believe?) then the easternmost platform will, like the one at Mount Dennis below, back onto the CP alignment, forming a de facto fifth track through both stations should Metrolinx obtain permission to bring their structure as far as the boundary/structure gauge of where a second CP track would lie.
If the track is doubled then the CP would take the eastern of the pair exclusively, and GO have use of the western. The question would be whether CP interconnect track arrangement still works on that basis, perhaps with a movement onto the GO-CP preceding a move onto the GO, and additional bridging over Black Creek on either the Metrolinx side or the CP.
The Pelmo Park station is at Wilson, and Humbermede at Sheppard - given the local density I don’t know if even one station works there, let alone two?
If the track is doubled then the CP would take the eastern of the pair exclusively, and GO have use of the western. The question would be whether CP interconnect track arrangement still works on that basis, perhaps with a movement onto the GO-CP preceding a move onto the GO, and additional bridging over Black Creek on either the Metrolinx side or the CP.
The Pelmo Park station is at Wilson, and Humbermede at Sheppard - given the local density I don’t know if even one station works there, let alone two?
Last edited:
Garuda
Active Member
Unless I see CP giving the OK to this it ain’t happening.
nfitz
Superstar
I'd think GO would stay on their own tracks until north of Weston, and then build a connection there. I'm not sure there is even a connection south of Weston any more (unless they wanted to reverse twice).
Not on the existing CP track - (though there's a couple of sections that have double track - or a siding). It looks as though that the right-of-way is the standard 66 feet (one chain). That would allow for 4 tracks (well, 5, but I assume you'd need the occasional siding or ladder tracks). If a solution ($) could be done to give GO 2 tracks and CP 2 tracks, I don't see that CP would be an issue.
(heck, Bolton service would be infrequent enough, that they could run a single GO track for many years, with some passing points at stations. Stouffville passenger service has been running on a single shared track with freight for over 150 years now.)
kamira51
Active Member
It's absolutely ridiculous how difficult it is to expand our passenger rail network.
Bordercollie
Senior Member
I don't think it would be in the planning stage without consultation with the host railway.
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
Can't you see how this plan that will help thousands (maybe tens of thousands) of people affects ME!
Last edited:
Krypto98
Active Member
The mactier doesn't have enough capacity for both go transit and cp operations
Going south yes from Nickle towards west toronto which CN uses for their overnight interchange job, a northward connector doesn't exist and optimally could be built at Nickle. Then GO transit movements could stop on the north side of the new platform 1 at weston go...
crs1026
Superstar
There would have to be track added, absolutely. But the corridor width can absorb that. Just bring money.
I am far more optimistic than some about CP's stance on passenger - if they detect a serious intent. They already deal with GO, VIA, Amtrak, Exo, Pacific Coast Express, and Metra. And as noted are cooperating with GO on Bowmanville. What makes the decisionmaking so lengthy is, they will (understandably) roll out a long list of requirements that protects their freight operations from disruptions - and looking many years in the future. Then the passenger agency will have to haggle every little bit with them.... because the pax agency doesn't have as much money to spend as CP may require, and they will challenge whether each and every item on CP's list is really necessary.
The bargaining leverage rests with the railway, because they are under no time pressure whereas the pax agency wants to get something going in the shortest time possible - so they may blink first. Or shelve the whole thing.
The CTA does in fact have the legal mandate to act as third party if a railway and a passenger agency can't reach agreement over use of a freight line for passenger. Apparently, this tribunal seldom gets used - the point being, no agency wants to hear the arbitrator's answer as it might be far more provident to the host railway than what a lengthy 2-party negotiation might produce.
I can't believe anyone would seriously propose a frequent passenger service on the CP's surface line through Weston, after all the tussle about the Pearson-Georgetown South trains which led to the construction of that expensive tunnel. Any new service will have to go through the tunnel. There is definitely room for a connection at the tunnel's west end, but the gradient up to the level of the CP route is not easy to confirm.
- Paul
robmausser
Senior Member
Nope. GO doesnt own the corridor, its CP's rail, and they and CN have been very vocally clear that they will not allow catenary on their rails or even IN their corridor as new separate GO only rail.