GO Transit: Construction Projects (Metrolinx, various)

[Allandale25]

^ I can definitely see why you noted there are a lot of balls in the air. Helpful overview.

 

[Allandale25]

To stir something further in...........

As part of discussions over how to deal with flooding on the Bala sub......one of the options raised was re-routing GO RH via the Don Branch, but taking it past the rail bridge, and having it hug the DVP across Pottery Rd before dropping back into the existing RH alignment.

So a route similar to this? See the blue line. How far north would it go before it would meet back up with the Richmond Hill line?

 

[dowlingm]

This may be related to the apparent move to abandon the Portlands/waterfront spur

The number of times that "went missing" in Unilever and Gardiner renderings...

The layover is a bit odd considering "Wilson" yard's expansion although I guess it does make some pathing easier from layover to the northern tracks/platforms. In theory the progress of the Waterfront spillway should reduce the chances of the trainsets being trapped on high ground, and being beside the DVP means a noise buffer, plus a Metrolinx exec gets to say that the Don Branch wasn't a waste of money while not needing the main bridge to be able to have GO trains run on it. Those who know the graffiti on the embankment under the subway bridge are aware than it's not a vandalism free zone...

Removing the Bayview cloverleaf would be very interesting indeed. I have mulled over the Pottery Road grade crossing several times while passing through it but figured it would be difficult to do much different. The electrification to Pottery Road thing is another mysterious item.

@Allandale25 I would think they would want to hug the DVP all the way round to the Leaside Bridge if only to keep down the number of river crossings. The Ontario Line Don Crossing could influence available options too.

 

[Northern Light]

So a route similar to this? See the blue line. How far north would it go before it would meet back up with the Richmond Hill line?

View attachment 230670

I never saw a map, and I don't know how far along conceptual modelling was ...........

From discussions with various parties, my impression was that the tracks would reconnect into the existing Bala not that far north of Pottery. In my head, I was thinking where the alignment is close again, 200m or so north of Pottery.

But as I said, I never saw a drawing, formal otherwise.

 

[Allandale25]

The layover is a bit odd considering "Wilson" yard's expansion although I guess it does make some pathing easier from layover to the northern tracks/platforms. In theory the progress of the Waterfront spillway should reduce the chances of the trainsets being trapped on high ground, and being beside the DVP means a noise buffer, plus a Metrolinx exec gets to say that the Don Branch wasn't a waste of money while not needing the main bridge to be able to have GO trains run on it. Those who know the graffiti on the embankment under the subway bridge are aware than it's not a vandalism free zone...

I wonder if part of the rationale for this new layover is that they need trains on the north side of the USRC East and the Wilson Yard is on the south side. I wonder if this layover will specifically be for Barrie Line trains? cc @crs1026 @smallspy

Image below from a presentation from March 2018, but the E0 extension isn't being built (red arrows added) at this time per this presentation in May 2019.
.

 

[smallspy]

Well now, that's different; on so many levels.

If I'm reading that correctly, they're proposing to twin track the Don Branch for the portion designated as a layover facility. That, I believe will require reconstruction of the rail embankment.

As far as I can tell, that is correct.

I take it they would store trains on both the new track and the 'mainline' (which isn't right now since it goes nowhere).

I'm less certain of that, although I do think that it is a fair assumption to make.

If the intent is storage on both tracks, that would preclude VIA HFR from running through at this location.

Not inherently. There no reason why they couldn't later remove the train being stored on the "main" should the need arise to run trains through there.

For instance, there are currently two trains stored on the main in Lincolnville. This is a temporary situation, but it has been this way for a couple of years now.

This may be related to the apparent move to abandon the Portlands/waterfront spur and the associated rail yard. There is clear talk about improved access to the Unilever site, which would imply no tracks at all north of Lakeshore, east of the Don.

To the best my knowledge, there are no plans to abandon the Portlands trackage. Indeed, that decision would rest on Ports Toronto and whatever they have planned for the area, and not Metrolinx.

All this, in turn has impacts on the OL discussion again, if VIA HFR is to be routed through Stouffville Sub.

Again, in theory. There are still a lot of unknowns about the HFR project.

I may have to oppose this yard; given the associated access road project, it may prove very disruptive to plans for Lower Don Park.

I'm not sure that it would be that disruptive. There is already an access road virtually all the way to the planned location of the layover office. It isn't used often, but it is used. And this access would certainly not be used other than a small handful of times each weekday by Metrolinx staff.

Discussions inside the City have been getting serious around removing the Bayview offramp cloverleaf and reducing Bayview to one-lane each way to allow for a more park-like setting.

While the cloverleaf is superfluous, the access road that already exists is not, and will have to be maintained for Toronto Hydro to access their site. The City as well uses it for major construction projects on the Prince Edward Viaduct. Metrolinx would simply be using this same road.

Dan

 

[Northern Light]

To the best my knowledge, there are no plans to abandon the Portlands trackage. Indeed, that decision would rest on Ports Toronto and whatever they have planned for the area, and not Metrolinx.
Dan

That info, comes from this post here at UT: https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threa...waterfront-toronto.3363/page-136#post-1528257

 

[crs1026]

^ I haven’t seen with my own eyes, but I’m told the harbour spur has in fact been ripped up east of the Don bridge.

- Paul

 

[innsertnamehere]

^ I haven’t seen with my own eyes, but I’m told the harbour spur has in fact been ripped up east of the Don bridge.

- Paul

It's been decommissioned for a while past Canadian Tire at Leslie as they ripped it up to build a new Canada Post building. Canroof is the only one with an active track connection still because of that, and I'm not sure they even use it. Toronto water, the main customer on the sub, has been cut off as a part of that construction, and while there has been talk of "realigning" it along leslie beside the Canada Post building, not much has happened on that front. I would be surprised if it isn't ripped up in the next year or so, to be honest.

 

[44 North]

I don't know if that prospect is "on" or not....but..... it might align to what Metrolinx will show at the upcoming TPAP meetings ie a new layover facility on the Don Branch. Hard to tell if there would still be a thru track. The below slides were emailed out by the Riverdale South residents for a presentation that was recently given prior to the TPAP meetings.

- Paul

PS: The electrification up to Pottery Road is a very puzzling item, also.

View attachment 230640

A train yard under the viaduct. What's that squared area in the above image, right below Danforth...a parking lot? Sometimes it seems like large projects come right out of the blue. Wasn't it a year ago that a new and mammoth Oriole station proposal came out of nowhere.

If they want to put to use Don Branch then they should keep going and takeover Leaside Spur.

 

[lenaitch]

One of the final nails in the coffin of Toronto's delusion that it is an active, viable commercial port.

 

[smallspy]

That info, comes from this post here at UT: https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threa...waterfront-toronto.3363/page-136#post-1528257

View attachment 230709

Thanks for this.

I wonder if they have notified the couple of industries that still use the spur. The City apparently had to beg in order to arrange for trucking to and from the Ashbridges Bay plant for the interim period whilst the spur was torn up alongside Leslie.

The also raises the question - is that realignment of the spur still going to happen? There hasn't been any indication at the City end that it isn't going ahead.

Dan

 

[crs1026]

ML February Board Meeting has a new BCS on Bowmanville Extension.

- Paul

 

[drum118]

Thanks for this.

I wonder if they have notified the couple of industries that still use the spur. The City apparently had to beg in order to arrange for trucking to and from the Ashbridges Bay plant for the interim period whilst the spur was torn up alongside Leslie.

The also raises the question - is that realignment of the spur still going to happen? There hasn't been any indication at the City end that it isn't going ahead.

Dan

I was at a meeting last night for this area and there was no talk about the rail going away by the city. Will add this to the list of questions as well recommendations for the area. Employment is a number issue with the city for the area and those business have been there close to 50 years.

 

[ShonTron]

Every city and town thought they'd be a viable port with the coming of the Seaway. Today, only Hamilton remains a port of any significance on Lake Ontario, though Lake Erie still has Buffalo, Cleveland, and Ashtabula.