News   Nov 22, 2024
National Housing Day: City of Toronto and Riverdale Co-op Open Affordable Homes
 550     1 
News   Nov 22, 2024
Bauhaus Condos Rising in Toronto's Old Town
 1K     5 
News   Nov 22, 2024
49-Storey Waterfront Tower Proposed at Spadina and Queens Quay
 2.7K     8 

GO Transit: Construction Projects (Metrolinx, various)

^For the distances involved, (2.2 miles from the CP line to Lawrence, 1.2 miles from Lawrence to Kennedy) I'm not sure there is much value in adding tracks. Those minimum block lengths even with moving blocks mean that a GO train being overtaken would experience a lot of dwell during the overtake. That's especially problemmatic for westbound VIA trains, as the variability of arrival time after a 250-mile trip from Ottawa will not mesh with GO trains on headways of even 15 minutes. The best I would assume is a first-come, first-served approach to the southward direction. If I were to add a track, it would be to extend the VIA connecting track to a point south of Lawrence which would give some room for contingency.

To @Allandale25's point, I have always assumed that behind the scenes ML would eventually ask VIA to pony up capital dollars for improvements, on the same premise as CN expects VIA to do so - shared long term use of the asset. VIA can't expect that it would get free use of the asset, and the asset has to be enhanced to meet both interests.

I'm not so sure that Mr Verster deserves much credit for being "commercially astute" when the change comes so quickly after triggering a TPAP and design for the Scarborough Jct tunnel. This new planmay be a cleverer idea, but it seems to be a snap decision - just as the planning of the tunnel was a snap decision after years of ignoring the need for it.

- Paul
 
^ Monday's almost here so we'll see what the budget says. In my ideal world the JPO report would be released at same time to help clarify some of these HFR track speculation discussions we've had (even enjoyed?) here since the start of the thread.
 
crs1026 said:
^For the distances involved, (2.2 miles from the CP line to Lawrence, 1.2 miles from Lawrence to Kennedy) I'm not sure there is much value in adding tracks. Those minimum block lengths even with moving blocks mean that a GO train being overtaken would experience a lot of dwell during the overtake. That's especially problemmatic for westbound VIA trains, as the variability of arrival time after a 250-mile trip from Ottawa will not mesh with GO trains on headways of even 15 minutes. The best I would assume is a first-come, first-served approach to the southward direction. If I were to add a track, it would be to extend the VIA connecting track to a point south of Lawrence which would give some room for contingency.

To @Allandale25's point, I have always assumed that behind the scenes ML would eventually ask VIA to pony up capital dollars for improvements, on the same premise as CN expects VIA to do so - shared long term use of the asset. VIA can't expect that it would get free use of the asset, and the asset has to be enhanced to meet both interests.

I'm not so sure that Mr Verster deserves much credit for being "commercially astute" when the change comes so quickly after triggering a TPAP and design for the Scarborough Jct tunnel. This new planmay be a cleverer idea, but it seems to be a snap decision - just as the planning of the tunnel was a snap decision after years of ignoring the need for it.

- Paul
Click to expand...
The reason for the two-track bottleneck between Lawrence and the VIA junction is the 401 underpass which (as far as I can tell) can only fit two tracks.
Capture.JPG

Of course anything's possible if we throw enough money at it, as we saw when the Kitchener Line ran into the same obstacle.

It looks like it might be practical to bring the southbound track further south, on the west side of the west platform at Kennedy. That would help reduce delays for the local train taking the siding.
Capture1.JPG
 
reaperexpress said:
Of course anything's possible if we throw enough money at it, as we saw when the Kitchener Line ran into the same obstacle.
Click to expand...

I'm a bit sympathetic to VIA in the sense that whatever solution needs to not be a delay to getting HFR going. A new tunnel would help, but possibly as a further refinement.
VIA may have been unable to get HFR approval for years now, but if it gets approval I would hope it would be built with all possible haste. I'd hate to see ML work become an impediment to VIA getting HFR going.
GO won't be running at 15 minute headways anytime soon, so perhaps the timing isn't critical.

reaperexpress said:
It looks like it might be practical to bring the southbound track further south, on the west side of the west platform at Kennedy. That would help reduce delays for the local train taking the siding.
Click to expand...

One key design need is that wherever the siding is placed, the siding has to be long enough to allow a southbound train to take the siding at speed. I'd be thinking turnouts good for 45 mph. The siding then has to be long enough to let the train safely decelerate to a station stop with appropriate safety margin. If the train had to decelerate further before taking the turnout, it would add to the time that a closely following train would have to hold back or run slowly a block length behind. GO trains decelerate fairly quickly so I don't know if that really adds too much siding length ahead of the platform itself, but it's a consideration.

- Paul
 
Last edited:
^ Out of curiosity, are there switches in North America that have a higher speed than 45 mph? Are there switches on HSR lines with higher speeds?
 
Allandale25 said:
^ Out of curiosity, are there switches in North America that have a higher speed than 45 mph? Are there switches on HSR lines with higher speeds?
Click to expand...

Number 20 turnouts, rated for 45 mph, are the default high speed cross overs for North American railroads, but much faster crossovers do exist elsewhere.

Amtrak and NJ Transit have experimented with 80 mph crossovers on the Northeast Corridor -see here. I gather there may be some 60 mph turnouts on Amtrak lines in California, and some 60 mph turnouts on Union Pacific freight trackage.

The obvious factors are space (very long crossovers), cost, and maintainability/reliability. The faster crossovers are more complex mechanically, and they have to withstand much greater lateral forces.

- Paul
 
Last edited:
Allandale25 said:
^ Out of curiosity, are there switches in North America that have a higher speed than 45 mph? Are there switches on HSR lines with higher speeds?
Click to expand...

The standard #20 turnout as used here is generally rated for 50mph in the US.

There are two other AREMA standards for even higher-speed turnouts - #27.5 @ 60mph and #32.7 @ 80mph. Amtrak uses the #32.7s on almost all of the crossovers on track that they own, and is replacing almost all of the remaining lower-speed ones with them.

Beyond that - AREMA is doing studies on a number of other turnout designs, particularly the French. North Americans start their turnouts with a tangent - thus the slight "jerk" that you get when a train goes through one. The French designs use spirals and different hardware, and seem to allow higher speeds through the same physical size (although that may also be in part due to their lighter trains).

Dan
 
From my point of no knowledge on switch design, there are big different between NA and Europe. As Dan pointed out, Europe equipment is lighter than NA that allow faster movement through the switches and been on a number of those trains doing it.

Passenger trains and freight trains are 2 different things in Europe compare to NA. Europe only run 700 meters freight trains on both single and double axles with single been replace with duel as well the cars have a lower carrying capacity. Freight trains can only get up to 160 km on some lines, but mostly 100 or less. Most intercity passenger trains are single level ranging from 7-18 cars long on all high speed lines with some DD trains. You will find the same on lower speed lines. Been too long since I rode an Europe passenger train and don't think they really slow down much changing track other than near the station from what I recall and could be wrong.

In NA, passenger trains for intercity are single level in Canada 3-8 long other than the Canadian that is longer. Amtrak is a combination of single and DD cars trains that ranges all over the place depending on which route they are on from what I have seen. Saw a 12 car train in El Pasco that had 9 DD and 3 single level cars. The single level cars where dinning cars. The Maple Leaf Train is single level. Never been on an Amtrak train and 25 years since I rode a VIA train.

GO Transit can be class as an intercity train to a point using 12 DD cars and does slow down when changing tracks based on the trains I been on. Have a few videos showing this.

Freight trains will have the most impact on switches from load capacity and 60-200 car long trains. Have seen a few trains longer than 200 cars that run slower and were double stack. Saw one leaving Tucson at 245 long with power in 4 locations.

UP express way between Bailey Yard in North Platte to Chicago is something to see with 4 track that are suppose to see more and those train speeding by in both direction at the same time. Most likely to have high speed switches in this area.

Like everything there is cost and maintaining of switches that are require to justify having high speed switches than slower ones. Based on what coming down the line, high speed switches are a must.

My 2 Cents
 
I can't speak for other European countries, but here in the Netherlands most of the switches near stations have turnout speeds of 40 to 80 km/h. Switches away from stations usually have 140 km/h turnouts if the switch is used in regular service.
For reference:
45 mph = 72 km/h;
80 mph = 129 km/h
 
reaperexpress said:
I can't speak for other European countries, but here in the Netherlands most of the switches near stations have turnout speeds of 40 to 80 km/h. Switches away from stations usually have 140 km/h turnouts if the switch is used in regular service.
For reference:
45 mph = 72 km/h;
80 mph = 129 km/h
Click to expand...
But... but... but... to do the same here in North America would anger the automobile gods! So saith the accountants.
 
To avoid cluttering the OL thread that's gone off topic:
ARG1 said:
The Oriole upgrades is less of an upgrade and more of a northward shift so that the station has a proper connection with Line 4. Its not slated to happen any time soon, and is instead something that will probably happen alongside the extension of Line 4 east to meet Line 2.
Click to expand...
Isn't Oriole planned to be relocated fairly soon--I recall hearing it would be within the next few years. Or possibly bundled with the current work on the Leslie-401 ramp?
 
innsertnamehere said:
I was under the understanding that the Oriole move was required to rebuild the 401 bridge over Leslie - which is happening very soon. I recall Metrolinx going as far as filing a site plan application for the new station and everything.
Click to expand...
Yep. It's filed under the address 2760 Old Leslie Street. Here's the application timeline, from the City website:
Knipsel.JPG


I can't seem to get a static link for that application's home page, but if you search that address in the City's Application Information Centre, you can find links to architectural drawings for the new station.

There's plenty more where this came from:
Knipsel2.JPG
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top