News   Nov 27, 2024
Masterplanned Community in Markham Would Replace Big Box Centre
 81     0 
News   Nov 27, 2024
Menkes Welcomes First Occupants to Festival at Assembly Park in Vaughan
 586     0 
News   Nov 27, 2024
News Roundup for November 27, 2024
 500     0 

General railway discussions

drum118 said:
It must be out west as it looks like eleven power units on that train with a BC Rail leading. Haven't seen an BC Rail unit in some time
Click to expand...
Gio Rail siding in Welland. The units are being scrapped at SLM on photo left. The wind was 50km/h so I didn't get a better shot, maybe next weekend.
 
NW87 said:
Gio Rail siding in Welland. The units are being scrapped at SLM on photo left. The wind was 50km/h so I didn't get a better shot, maybe next weekend.
Click to expand...
Getting any shots this weekend was channeling trying to deal with the wind regardless on the ground or flying, especially in open areas.

Since you said they are being scrap, there is more than 11 in that line. Is there any area that you can get close to shoot anything other than by drome??
 
Screenshot_2024-01-21_173438.jpg
 
dowlingm said:
Does anyone with knowledge of the history of the CP Belleville construction know what the reason behind the route between Oshawa, Darlington and Bowmanville is? Every time the GO extension comes up I end up looking at it.

It just seems a weird southward bend without obvious justification (like reaching the shoreline), and even weirder that there wasn’t a move more recently to position it a touch more northerly with a new bridge over 418 so that the 418/401 junction didn’t have to be built with freights and (soon? Maybe? One day?) GO trains threading through it.
Click to expand...

I'm no railway engineer (though I did once stay at a super 8 LOL!). However a cursory look at the topography of the area shows that there is a narrow band of fairly even terrain that follows the Lake Ontario shoreline. Meanwhile the terrain North raises quite quickly. In fact a straight line from Oshawa to Bowmanville would go from an elevation of ~80 m to ~130 m, a rise of 50 m over ~3 Km. That kind of slope might not be an issue today but I'm guessing railway engineers of the time chose instead to follow the flatter terrain closer to the lake. Even if it meant a windy route.

Since Courtice has built up around the rail line now. Any attempt to straighten the line would result in significant expropriation.
 
Random, but as I was driving down the 403 yesterday evening, I saw a consist sitting on CP's Hamilton sub near the Desjardins Canal with double-stacked freight, but it did not extend over the 403 bridge. Is the Hunter Street tunnel tall enough to handle double-stacked freight?
 
Metroscapes said:
Random, but as I was driving down the 403 yesterday evening, I saw a consist sitting on CP's Hamilton sub near the Desjardins Canal with double-stacked freight, but it did not extend over the 403 bridge. Is the Hunter Street tunnel tall enough to handle double-stacked freight?
Click to expand...

Yes, but only because CP replaced the old double track through the tunnel with a single track in the centre, where there’s just enough clearance.
 
just east of the creek said:
With respect, I think your assertion that moving yards to an area you have designated is misplaced. The present yard serves industry centered on the Hamilton Harbour, and that access needs to continue. HOPA continues to invest in infrastructure in the harbour and projects further growth in tonnage and products. This is all ready a busy Great Lakes Port.

I am not sure of the lands you are designating for a new yard, but the idea may run into issues with protected farm lands in those areas related to the tender fruit growers. That I need to look at as I am working from memory here. I also assume somewhere there will be a budget for CN to move the yard,.

I understand that the waterfront land and access to waterfront is valuable. I get that and have argued for it elsewhere. In this case I think you also need to balance that need for these lands against the services provided to industry and employment in the immediate area, plus the greater reach of the port.
Click to expand...
I'm moving this here because I think it is no longer relevant to the GO Service thread.

I agree that servicing the port and industrial customers in Hamilton is important. I think the Stelco lands would work but I can understand the distance from the mainline would potentially cause issues. The area I was thinking is between the QEW and Barton St to the North and South, Fruitland road to the west and Fifty road to the east. The area is all currently light industrial, warehouses, and empty lots. There is already a GO layover yard to the south of the mainline in this area. It would cost quite a bit to purchase the required land, close or grade separate roads, and build a yard. I don't know if the extra 5-10km of distance from the customers would make a meaningful difference in the cost to service them by CN. There are already plenty of service tracks and sidings in the port area that get used for local service.

I was more pondering moving the yard it as a long term vision that I'm sure the city and CN must have on their mind occasionally. There is a huge chunk of land on and around the yard that is limited in development by the yard existing. Most notably the yard being present imposing height limits on nearby development, and there is a lot of empty land to the west of the GO station that can't be truly developed due to proximity to the yard. At one point the potential income of these developments will outweigh the cost of moving the yard. I don't know when that will be but it would be important for the city to plan for it.
 
The CN intermodal yard in Milton is more isolated than this and look how much fuss there was about it. I suspect neighbouring municipalities will have little appetite to solve Hamilton’s problems for them. CN’s Macmillan Yard is perpendicular to the mainline and there is over two kilometres between the main line and the lake, enough to build a Stuart sized yard including some buffer to the lake. Even then, that is complicated by some residential development which was permitted north of the CN in sectors C and D of the map below - and of course the existing owners would have their own ideas for the industrial lands.

1707226075556.png
 
It’s possible that the work performed in the Hamilton yard could be shifted or modified without the need to replicate the current yard in its present form. Hypothetically, the switching could be done at (for example) Mac Yard and brought directly into the industrial zones.
That may sound cumbersome, but if that yard has a real estate value of hundreds of million dollars (as it may, the plans to develop in Hamilton may become a smaller scale replication of Toronto’s Railway Lands) then that new operating plan may make CN lots of money, while still serving its customers adequately.
We can be certain that someone st CN is doing exactly those numbers, and analysing how
Much of that yard’s activity can be shifted at minimum investment.

- Paul
 
kamira51 said:
I would kill for an HSR electrified 270kmph across the country.
Click to expand...
For context I was in Germany for a business trip to Nuremberg, the train we took was going 270km in one section and it was fantastic, makes me wish we had that here stretching across the country.

I think it's totally possible if the federal government took it seriously.

One can dream.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top