News   Nov 21, 2024
Toronto Coach Terminal Redevelopment to include Housing, Paramedics Hub, Employment Spaces, Public Space
 45     0 
News   Nov 21, 2024
News Roundup for November 21, 2024
 294     0 
News   Nov 21, 2024
Front Street Glow
 377     0 

GO Transit: Construction Projects (Metrolinx, various)

Northern Light said:
FWIW, I do believe electrification will be going forward here in the future.

There's another proposed rail service which may require it. ;)
Click to expand...
This is where things get interesting. From what I understood (and I could be wrong about this), the plan for the Don Valley Layover Facility didn't allow for VIA trains to use the CP Don Spur, so I'm willing to bet that part of the decision for this move is that VIA begged GO to move it elsewhere.

The thing is though, electrifying the CP don sub does almost nothing for the Richmond Hill line unless the leaside spur is reactivated... so maybe?

... nah I'm just inhaling a ton of hopium.
Allandale25 said:
I don't think that's correct. They were going to electrify the Richmond Hill Line at the Rosedale Siding
Click to expand...
... but why? That frankly makes even less sense
 
ARG1 said:
This is where things get interesting. From what I understood (and I could be wrong about this), the plan for the Don Valley Layover Facility didn't allow for VIA trains to use the CP Don Spur, so I'm willing to bet that part of the decision for this move is that VIA begged GO to move it elsewhere.

The thing is though, electrifying the CP don sub does almost nothing for the Richmond Hill line unless the leaside spur is reactivated... so maybe?

... nah I'm just inhaling a ton of hopium.

... but why? That frankly makes even less sense
Click to expand...

Because other lines that will be electrified need a location to turn trains, apparently. cc @smallspy
 
ARG1 said:
This is where things get interesting. From what I understood (and I could be wrong about this), the plan for the Don Valley Layover Facility didn't allow for VIA trains to use the CP Don Spur, so I'm willing to bet that part of the decision for this move is that VIA begged GO to move it elsewhere.
Click to expand...

I cannot speak to the motivations of parties involved; but I also wouldn't argue with you on this point......

ARG1 said:
The thing is though, electrifying the CP don sub does almost nothing for the Richmond Hill line unless the leaside spur is reactivated... so maybe?

... nah I'm just inhaling a ton of hopium.
Click to expand...

I am completely unaware of any such plan, and for the record, I believe any attempt at this would directly conflict with VIA HFR using the Don Branch. A single-track line of that length, can only support so many trains per hour.
 
Further clarification (HT @JasonParis). I assume that "this facility" refers to the new Layover location at York Mills Rd/Leslie St (general area map below from a post above).

1677699460188.png


1677699525638.png
 
Allandale25 said:
Further clarification (HT @JasonParis). I assume that "this facility" refers to the new Layover location at York Mills Rd/Leslie St (general area map below from a post above).

View attachment 459203

View attachment 459204
Click to expand...
You're looking too far north. Metrolinx already owns a swath of land adjacent to the Bala Sub immediately south of York Mills - it's where they have the MOW forces staged for the bridge work in the valley. That's where they will put this layover facility.

Of course, it's not all terrific news. For instance, this will complicate any bi-directional operations on the line, as it takes a train about 22 minutes to go from the siding at Rosedale to the siding at Oriole (immediately north of York Mills).

And it doesn't change the fact that trains will now have to go though two known flooding areas to access it, rather than just one.

Dan
 
smallspy said:
You're looking too far north. Metrolinx already owns a swath of land adjacent to the Bala Sub immediately south of York Mills - it's where they have the MOW forces staged for the bridge work in the valley. That's where they will put this layover facility.

Of course, it's not all terrific news. For instance, this will complicate any bi-directional operations on the line, as it takes a train about 22 minutes to go from the siding at Rosedale to the siding at Oriole (immediately north of York Mills).

And it doesn't change the fact that trains will now have to go though two known flooding areas to access it, rather than just one.

Dan
Click to expand...

Do you think they may add some sidings between the layover and Rosedale siding to allow for more passing? I wonder if they also may have to because this is the route the Northlander will use.
 
smallspy said:
You're looking too far north. Metrolinx already owns a swath of land adjacent to the Bala Sub immediately south of York Mills - it's where they have the MOW forces staged for the bridge work in the valley. That's where they will put this layover facility.

Of course, it's not all terrific news. For instance, this will complicate any bi-directional operations on the line, as it takes a train about 22 minutes to go from the siding at Rosedale to the siding at Oriole (immediately north of York Mills).

And it doesn't change the fact that trains will now have to go though two known flooding areas to access it, rather than just one.

Dan
Click to expand...
Is there no space for another track here?

"Edit* there should be enough space to extend the siding to the Korean cultural Center. Up around York Mills there is space for 3 tracks but the bridge before Oriole Station only supports two tracks. North of there the bridge over Sheppard is wide enough for two tracks until the trestle over the ravine.
If they need the siding at York Mills for storage they could extend the double track that ends near Oriole and extend it north to Sheppard which would allow trains to pass. The problem is that for two trains to occupy the station you would need a second platform.
 
Last edited:
well now that they got what they whined for PAY FOR IT! there will be significant cost increases and schedule delay for the redesign, not to mention for new land acquisition and probably more opposition there.
you can never appease everyone and these treehuggers/lobbyists love to complain about everything. you wonder why transit here is sparse and costly? this is a prime example why!
its a shame that were too scared of these minority fringe groups that we would bend over to their whims
 
cplchanb said:
well now that they got what they whined for PAY FOR IT! there will be significant cost increases and schedule delay for the redesign, not to mention for new land acquisition and probably more opposition there.
you can never appease everyone and these treehuggers/lobbyists love to complain about everything. you wonder why transit here is sparse and costly? this is a prime example why!
its a shame that were too scared of these minority fringe groups that we would bend over to their whims
Click to expand...

oh god. You think it was nimbys that led to this decision? Why?
 
cplchanb said:
well now that they got what they whined for PAY FOR IT! there will be significant cost increases and schedule delay for the redesign, not to mention for new land acquisition and probably more opposition there.
you can never appease everyone and these treehuggers/lobbyists love to complain about everything. you wonder why transit here is sparse and costly? this is a prime example why!
its a shame that were too scared of these minority fringe groups that we would bend over to their whims
Click to expand...
i mean yea i agree but not here.

unless proven otherwise, this should be just metrolinx finding a better way to do things

Is this not what the 2 year "development phase" is for? not just doing a bid, but taking the time to further develop the project?

If "onexpress" came out and said they found a way to not need the 4th track in riverside (no fkn way) but theoretically if they did....would metrolinx have bowed to the pressure of the community?
 
^My theory is that ML thought about it and realised that they were far more comfortable with their backing down and giving VIA this route, than with trying to intermingle HFR with service on the LSE and Stouffville lines, with a fairly speed restrictive new junction to the CP route in Agincourt, and with the re-signalling that might require from Kennedy to Agincourt.

- Paul
 
^ So between the Don Spur connection to the Belleville Sub and the Havelock Sub, you're saying in theory HFR could use the existing signaling?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top