GO Transit: Construction Projects (Metrolinx, various)

[Allandale25]

Interesting. I was pretty convinced it was going to be three tracks continuously. Guess it's not needed or it's technically challenging. It would have just had a more continuous feel.

 

[drum118]

Amen.

In theory it ought to be simple, but CN has shifted the tracks down there so often that who knows.

I'm told (but not necessarily buying) that there is enough stuff buried under the junction (including the top of the road underpass) that the placement of the new signal bridges and switches was pretty tricky. That is the explanation offered for why the crossovers have to be 25 mph instead of 45mph.... no linear space for the faster but longer crossovers.

- Paul

Yes, the underpass is there that is on an angle, but that all that I know other than RR cables. You can see the switches are east of the underpass. I used the underpass in the past before close off either driving or walking it on a steep incline.

Can't recall if I seen the switch at Sliver, since I only been there a few times. Saw more in building the 2nd track bridge on the north side than west of it.

I did say in early 2000's when the EA came out to convert the single track line to double track that it needed to be 4 tracks at all the meetings. Was please to see a 3rd track going end when construction started on the line, but still saw the need for 4 tracks including 4 track the bridge. Other than downtown Brampton, the corridor could handle 4 tracks up to the junction easy.

Again, CN thinks small on various things and wants others to pickup the tab for doing things right when it can be done on their dime

June 26
Lot more up on site.
You can see all the pier supports of poles to electrify the complex.

I had a close look at a few photos from the yard to the complex and noticed some sort of support at the doors that will support the overhead across that wide drive area.

New Service Rd going in front of the complex and why its a long walk to the main entrance from the visitor and employees parking lot

Looking at these photos again, looks like the work for the new tracks are stopping where they are to be at this time, the whole bridge is to be replace with a wider one to allow more lanes of traffic at a future date, but could be wrong.

 

[crs1026]

Interesting. I was pretty convinced it was going to be three tracks continuously. Guess it's not needed or it's technically challenging. It would have just had a more continuous feel.

Ah, there's the CN thing again. CN insisted on having a two track path for its own trains that GO can't conflict with. So the design routes all the GO movements onto the southmost track. Yeah, two directions on one track between Bayview, through Aldershot to Burlington West.
On good days, CN is flexible and routes trains expeditiously, and GO trains can use either of the two south tracks.....but.... in bad times, it gets sticky. When the recent western meltdown occurred, CN issued an edict to its RTC's that there were to be no conflict that would delay a CN freight train, anywhere, full stop. So the Hamilton GO trains were restricted to only the south most track. From watching a few trains, it looks like that edict has eased, or been forgotten.... but it speaks to just how little flexibility GO has as the tenant on CN lines.

- Paul

 

[Allandale25]

^ Thanks Paul. And I guess the idea of a grade separation (rail-over/under-rail) here is not even on the radar/unlikely for the foreseeable future?

 

[crs1026]

^ Thanks Paul. And I guess the idea of a grade separation (rail-over/under-rail) here is not even on the radar/unlikely for the foreseeable future?

It has been fleshed out (at least partially, anyways) in engineering space, but.... $$$$$$$

- Paul

 

[smallspy]

^ Thanks Paul. And I guess the idea of a grade separation (rail-over/under-rail) here is not even on the radar/unlikely for the foreseeable future?

I'm not certain that a grade separation is needed, at least not for the foreseeable future.

CN has started making noises about a 4th track from Burlington West to at least Aldershot, and more likely to Bayview again though. Doing so would allow GO to operate on the 2 south-most tracks, and give the freights a straight shot from the Dundas to the Halton Subs without interference. (It would also allow them to work both ends of the yard at Aldershot simultaneously, which seems to be their real goal.) And I suspect that they will try and get GO to pay for it.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[drum118]

I'm not certain that a grade separation is needed, at least not for the foreseeable future.

CN has started making noises about a 4th track from Burlington West to at least Aldershot, and more likely to Bayview again though. Doing so would allow GO to operate on the 2 south-most tracks, and give the freights a straight shot from the Dundas to the Halton Subs without interference. (It would also allow them to work both ends of the yard at Aldershot simultaneously, which seems to be their real goal.) And I suspect that they will try and get GO to pay for it.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

First off, a number of mistakes and miss opportunity were made/miss when the 3rd track was added between Burlington and Bayview Junction from day one.

The old drill track at King Rd should have been track 4 when the grade separation took place, but they ran the creek bridge in that location. This was part of the city work and CN will have to pickup up the cost to build a new creek bridge first before tearing the old one out for the new 4th track.

When the new embankment was built at Bayview, it should had been a retaining wall to protect the corridor for more tracks and that still may have to be done.

I recall talk about a separation between Bayview and Hamilton Junction at a cost of $100 million plus and it die or disappear shortly after it surface. Most likely due to cost or long range.

It was a major issues getting a 3rd in at Bayview area due to the environment issues for the area and it will be more an issue for the 4th track. The 4th track would have to go in on the north side only due to the environment issues on the south side, but also dealing with Beth Jacob Cemetery on the south side. The road to the Cemetery will have to be rebuilt.

If I recall correctly, the Plains Rd bridge will have to be rebuilt as well the pedestrian bridge to the garden to get the 4th track in. Then you have to build another bridge over the valley like they did for the 3rd track or is it already in place??

Again, all rail corridors need to be 4 tracks or be protected for 4, with 3 in place now.

Given the fact the number of trains to/from Hamilton these days for CN, is a grade separation needed??

Even if a 4th track is built, Aldershot will be a bottle neck for CN without major changes to the yard. You need a 5th track at the east end going over King Rd and as much as you can get to the west.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Can't recall if I seen the switch at Sliver, since I only been there a few times.

It was on the curve in that the Halton sub was superelevated, and a slow order forced GO trains to crawl at 5 mph through the switch so that any derailment risk was minimized. It was so painful when I used to do the commute between Guelph and Toronto, but the new junction switch is further east now, out of the superelevation. It's much better.

Ah, there's the CN thing again. CN insisted on having a two track path for its own trains that GO can't conflict with. So the design routes all the GO movements onto the southmost track. Yeah, two directions on one track between Bayview, through Aldershot to Burlington West.
On good days, CN is flexible and routes trains expeditiously, and GO trains can use either of the two south tracks.....but.... in bad times, it gets sticky. When the recent western meltdown occurred, CN issued an edict to its RTC's that there were to be no conflict that would delay a CN freight train, anywhere, full stop. So the Hamilton GO trains were restricted to only the south most track. From watching a few trains, it looks like that edict has eased, or been forgotten.... but it speaks to just how little flexibility GO has as the tenant on CN lines.

- Paul

I'm not certain that a grade separation is needed, at least not for the foreseeable future.

CN has started making noises about a 4th track from Burlington West to at least Aldershot, and more likely to Bayview again though. Doing so would allow GO to operate on the 2 south-most tracks, and give the freights a straight shot from the Dundas to the Halton Subs without interference. (It would also allow them to work both ends of the yard at Aldershot simultaneously, which seems to be their real goal.) And I suspect that they will try and get GO to pay for it.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

A grade separation is definitely not warranted under current conditions. But if we want to a) increase GO service to Niagara, b) extend GO train service to Brantford one day, c) increase VIA service to London or Niagara/Amtrak runs to New York, and d) keep CN as is, I think a major design of Bayview should be considered. Some big triangular grade separation dealio.

Expensive, but if HSR returned to the original routing (instead of KW/Guelph), federal funding would help.

 

[MisterF]

It was on the curve in that the Halton sub was superelevated, and a slow order forced GO trains to crawl at 5 mph through the switch so that any derailment risk was minimized. It was so painful when I used to do the commute between Guelph and Toronto, but the new junction switch is further east now, out of the superelevation. It's much better.





A grade separation is definitely not warranted under current conditions. But if we want to a) increase GO service to Niagara, b) extend GO train service to Brantford one day, c) increase VIA service to London or Niagara/Amtrak runs to New York, and d) keep CN as is, I think a major design of Bayview should be considered. Some big triangular grade separation dealio.

Expensive, but if HSR returned to the original routing (instead of KW/Guelph), federal funding would help.

A minor point, but the KW route is the original HSR route. Or at least the one that has been recommended by the majority of studies over the decades. As far as I know the only one that recommended the Brantford route was the Ontario/Quebec report in 2011.

 

[TOareaFan]

A minor point, but the KW route is the original HSR route. Or at least the one that has been recommended by the majority of studies over the decades. As far as I know the only one that recommended the Brantford route was the Ontario/Quebec report in 2011.

And, also, strip away the bogus “need HSR to connect tech industry to Toronto” and you have an even sketchier business plan.

 

[mdrejhon]

PS: I wish I had started archiving GO/ML documents much earlier in my life. Things like the Kitchener GO EA have pretty much vanished from the web.

One thing that I did keep was the track chart from the Kitchener EA of 2009 - if anyone wants to see what the original track plan was, it's here.

- Paul

I think it is generally a good idea to trawl this link and this link and automatically save all PDF files, on a monthly basis.

Technically, this could be done via a simple script, saving to a shareable Dropbox folder (with a metadata file where the PDF originally came from).

 

[EastYorkTTCFan]

Wasn't that just another one of those pre Election promises by the Liberals? My guess is its dead.

I honestly think we should worry about the discount people are getting when transferring from GO to TTC. I could see that scaled back (like OHIP+)

The question I have is does Metrolinx need the permission of the government to change a fare or is it something they can do on their own? If they can do it on their own then it could still be on the table to happen that go train fare inside of Toronto will be the same as a TTC fare.

 

[smallspy]

It was on the curve in that the Halton sub was superelevated, and a slow order forced GO trains to crawl at 5 mph through the switch so that any derailment risk was minimized. It was so painful when I used to do the commute between Guelph and Toronto, but the new junction switch is further east now, out of the superelevation. It's much better.

The superelevation was not the cause of the slow order there, at least not for the switch. The turnout was a #20, capable of 45mph - if they had been forced to a lower speed because of track geometry, they would have also changed the switch to a lower sized switch to save on maintenance costs.

A grade separation is definitely not warranted under current conditions. But if we want to a) increase GO service to Niagara, b) extend GO train service to Brantford one day, c) increase VIA service to London or Niagara/Amtrak runs to New York, and d) keep CN as is, I think a major design of Bayview should be considered. Some big triangular grade separation dealio.

Expensive, but if HSR returned to the original routing (instead of KW/Guelph), federal funding would help.

I'm not convinced that there will ever be a need for a grade separation there. The GO trains can easily be located to the south mains, and the CN freights to the north. Unless GO and/or VIA were running hourly or better, a group of crossovers will be more than sufficient to keep things moving through the area - and won't cost a time penalty, as the geometry of the track through there will never allow for high speed operations anyways.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[Allandale25]

Meeting tonight:

Scott Money‏@sMoneyON
I'm heading to today's Public Meeting for Long Branch/Mimico/Park Lawn GO Stations at 2pm. We'll have the latest info on plans and timelines for development at these key stations. GO Expansion is going full steam ahead! @GOtransit @GOtransitLW

 

[robmausser]

Any update on the Stouffville double tracking?

What about phase 2 of Barrie double tracking?