News   Jul 15, 2024
Sculptural Pre-Cast Panels Now Adorning ANX near Dupont Station
 654     3 
News   Jul 15, 2024
Resubmitted Agincourt Condo Proposal Bumps Height, Reduces Parking
 802     1 
News   Jul 15, 2024
News Roundup for July 15, 2024
 615     0 

GO Transit: Construction Projects (Metrolinx, various)

DSC said:
You can bet that the folks in St Lawrence and Distillery will be pressing for 'something to be done " with the bridges )Jarvis, Sherbourne, Parliament and Cherry) that will be significantly widened when they add new tracks. When the bridges were renovated a few years ago GO promised to beautify them and all that happened was a coat of paint and some slightly better lighting so there is undoubtedly some scepticism!

The plan is below:
Click to expand...

Fairly big news, and these underpasses will become quite long. Interesting that the Cherry St Tower will be relocated, this should make any 514 extension much easier. I'm kinda hoping that the retaining wall/embankment for the track extension will be designed to accommodate greenery. Our current rail corridors are nice ribbons of green through the city, so it'd be nice to retain some of that.
 
I don't see any mention in the plan for the Lower Don River Trail regarding a VIA HFR line to CP Leaside.

It's not clear to me why GO needs more track around that curve when the Richmond Hill line is only going to see rush hour service anyways. So maybe it's all in hand.

All the same, VIA needs to speak now or perhaps lose its place in the plan.

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
I don't see any mention in the plan for the Lower Don River Trail regarding a VIA HFR line to CP Leaside.

It's not clear to me why GO needs more track around that curve when the Richmond Hill line is only going to see rush hour service anyways. So maybe it's all in hand.

All the same, VIA needs to speak now or perhaps lose its place in the plan.

- Paul
Click to expand...

Wouldn't the theoretical VIA HFR rail line benefit from the third track being added to the curve and a small northern extension? On page 8 of the deck it says "Track E0 - to the north; existing track to be extended to the east". Would the VIA HSF line, if ever built, need to be doubled-tracked from where it branches off of the Richmond Hill line up to Leaside? [we might want to move further discussions on this to the VIA Rail thread]
2sKUK6m
 
Allandale25 said:
Wouldn't the theoretical VIA HFR rail line benefit from the third track being added to the curve and a small northern extension? On page 8 of the deck it says "Track E0 - to the north; existing track to be extended to the east". Would the VIA HSF line, if ever built, need to be doubled-tracked from where it branches off of the Richmond Hill line up to Leaside? [we might want to move further discussions on this to the VIA Rail thread]
Click to expand...

I'm just wondering if VIA is left out because HFR is unofficial, or if it's really out of the ML vision.

I wondered if the intent was to move the GO Richmond Hill track (ie the Bala Sub main line) further away from the River, perhaps with a bit of added elevation. That still leaves room for VIA.

Tying the Bala directly into track EO brings the Richmond Hill GO trains right over to Jarvis Street without conflicting with trains on the Kingston Sub, which is a good thing as RER grows. But if a VIA line needs to tie into the interlockings somewhere, that needs to be roughed in now rather than added down the road.

It's possible GO intends to connect the south end of the Rosedale siding with a second main track right down to Don. It would let them run equipment moves between Union and Rosedale, so they can double back up the line against the current of revenue trains.

That's all just me speculating.

- Paul
 
Interesting ideas above, Paul. Thanks for sharing. I'm going to try to go to the community meeting on June 28th so can ask. Would you interpret that red line being further to the west so Mlx wanting more separation distance between the Don River and the location of the existing tracks?
 
Allandale25 said:
Interesting ideas above, Paul. Thanks for sharing. I'm going to try to go to the community meeting on June 28th so can ask. Would you interpret that red line being further to the west so Mlx wanting more separation distance between the Don River and the location of the existing tracks?
Click to expand...

That was my immediate reaction, yes. It doesn't solve the whole flooding issue along the entire Don Valley, but it wouldn't hurt.

- Paul
 
Can GO Richmond Hill and the New Relief line share same tracks? Why can't the new relief line be RER and also accommodate smaller GO trains in a tunnel up Don Mills, eventually turning west via hydro corridor to Old Cummer Station to take the existing rail up to Richmond Hill (this was discussed in the relief line thread a while ago -- or RH line could come out of tunnel at Don Mills just north of Lawrence onto existing rail corridor). The floor heights of these various trains could be the same. This shared tunnel would be a bigger, but if VIA and any freight could be removed from the Don River tracks (the missing link?), wouldn't this be a good way to solve several problems? The river could also be opened up to the city if those tracks could be removed.
 
Last edited:
ponyboy said:
Can GO Richmond Hill and the New Relief line share same tracks? Why can't the new relief line be RER and run smaller GO trains in a tunnel up Don Mills, eventually turning west via hydro corridor to Old Cummer Station to take the existing rail up to Richmond Hill (this was discussed in the relief line thread a while ago -- or RH line could come out of tunnel at Don Mills just north of Lawrence onto existing rail corridor). This shared tunnel would be a bigger, but if VIA and any freight could be removed from the Don River tracks (the missing link?), wouldn't this be a good way to solve several problems? The river could also be opened up to the city if those tracks could be removed.
Click to expand...
The DRL is a TTC project and is scheduled to be TTC gauge so they can use the existing yard and Greenwood rather then have to build a secondary one somewhere else. Alos it will likely conmet with the rest of the system in case of emergency and they need to move equipment around.
 
Allandale25 said:
So it's really not meant to be a through track? Just for storage.
Click to expand...

My two cents is that it will be a through track, though used for storage for the mid term. Metrolinx knows full well the amount of services that are supposed to come through there. Officially by 2031 it's to be RH (w/ express), service to Seaton, and service to Locust Hill (with possible expansion to maybe Peterboro). I think Metrolinx's Big Move is so pie in the sky that not even they believe it, but it's their plan. Then unofficially there's possible Via to P.boro/Ottawa, and maybe even some kind of air-rail link to Pickering North (something mentioned here a few times). Hard to say since it's just a powerpoint that's been posted, but logically it should be a through track from the start.
 
Allandale25 said:
So it's really not meant to be a through track? Just for storage.
Click to expand...

Unless something's changed inside 20 Bay in the past 5 months, the new track will be for storage. Right now, they are storing trains during the afternoon rush on one of the two mainline tracks around that curve. They're trying to avoid doing that in the long-term.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 
It says something positive that GO can't build storage tracks fast enough. Although, as track improvements kick in, hopefully the same number of trainsets will handle more runs through greater use of turnbacks.

So, the question for GO remains.....has the potential use of the former CP Don Branch by some future transit or intercity service been roughed into their planned interlocking upgrades? Or would that demand yet more revisions at yet more expense? Redoing interlocking is not cheap, a little time and money invested now might save bigger dollars down the road.

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
It says something positive that GO can't build storage tracks fast enough. Although, as track improvements kick in, hopefully the same number of trainsets will handle more runs through greater use of turnbacks.

So, the question for GO remains.....has the potential use of the former CP Don Branch by some future transit or intercity service been roughed into their planned interlocking upgrades? Or would that demand yet more revisions at yet more expense? Redoing interlocking is not cheap, a little time and money invested now might save bigger dollars down the road.

- Paul
Click to expand...

I'd be quite shocked if VIA hadn't talked to GO/Metrolinx about its plans for HFR on the Don Branch. VIA worked with (and failed) to come up with a solution in Montreal for integration with their REM project in the Mount Royal tunnel, so I think they are aware of other stakeholders, dispite their failure. Considering that the business case for HFR has been submitted to the Federal Government, one would assume that Metrolinx is on board. Also, improved trackage/connections present an opportunity for GO to service Peterborough so I think collaboration here is logical. But no concrete proof to support it however.
 
crs1026 said:
So, the question for GO remains.....has the potential use of the former CP Don Branch by some future transit or intercity service been roughed into their planned interlocking upgrades? Or would that demand yet more revisions at yet more expense? Redoing interlocking is not cheap, a little time and money invested now might save bigger dollars down the road.

- Paul
Click to expand...

The CTC on the Bala Sub isn't in need of upgrading - at least not for the foreseeable future - and the tie-ins at the ends of the USRC are being configured to allow for whatever future expansion will be required on any of the lines.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top