urbanclient
Active Member
Did you say that though? It at least doesn't appear you made any edits and you never mentioned subgrade?
Where the "subgrade" at?
Where the "subgrade" at?
|
|
|
GO Transit: Construction Projects (Metrolinx, various)
- Thread starter drum118
- Start date
crs1026
Superstar
Aside from abandonments, I can't think of an example where somebody deliberately built something that is now in the way of expanding a rail line. There are very few single track underpasses or bridges constructed. But anticipating how much future capacity to bake in may have its exceptions.
As a general rule, if anybody is building civil works today along a railway line, they design in some judicious futureproofing, to some (affordable) degree.
I will admit, when I rode the GO for the last couple decades, I mused at how they ought to just get on with adding track. The width is there, and it's level, right? There used to be service tracks along that line, right? Now, having seen how much prep work is involved, including utility relocation, telecom, bridge renewal, retaining walls, new geotextile, etc.... one realises it is a bigger task than it may have seemed. I still wish it was happening faster, but it can't happen everywhere all at once.
- Paul
lastcommodore
Active Member
Oh, I didn't.
Regardless, the point is just that subgrading without actually building rails leads to it being wasted. I don't think the point being made is that we should never build out for future projects, but that it needs to be done strategically because sometimes by the time it *can* be used, it's already deteriorated beyond use.
It's totally possible that building something well before it needs to be used, will generate losses overall. It's totally possible that it could lead to massive boons in the future. You just need to be smart about what you're doing.
It seems like this nearly happened recently when a company wanted to buy the air-rights above USRC from CN to build apartments over the line. Metrolinx appropriated the air rights later because it would interfere with their electrification, and they're now in court over it. Per The Trillium
urbanclient
Active Member
I just don't like this attitude of procrastination and the penny wise pound foolish consequences. No world leading transit city thinks in this way. And that's including jurisdictions that arguably just as broke.
A larger budget deficit today should ideally be mitigated by even larger financial AND economic savings in the long-term. Instead we defer maintenance and repairs on the TTC, GO rail infra, to the point that they start failing, then we end up having to pay extra in both financial and economic costs to rush a replacement (this shortsighted bridge, T1 cars to be replaced at ~30 years) And look how Metrolinx projects are funded and financed (someone more well-versed can chime in).
Theoretically lower upfront costs, but world leading costs upon completion, not to mention 30 year maintenance.
Last edited:
tsm1072
Active Member
I think the scope and type of project is important here. Building a bridge is a very different project compared to replacing bridge spans of an existing structure. If Metrolinx is building a new bridge, with new abutments, then building the abutments to support a 4th span would be important. But I believe this project is replacing existing spans, and re-using and repairing existing abutments. In that case, re-engineering the abutments to accommodate a 4th span is a huge increase in scope and cost, not to mention the added difficulty of trying to limit downtime.
There are times to protect for future expansion, and we've seen plenty of examples of that through station upgrades and new bridges and grade separations, but this just may not be one of those times.
A 4th track along LW will have to happen eventually, but will be an expensive and complex project. If you look along the corridor, there will need to be a large number of retaining walls, sound barriers, grade separations, and new bridges. Look at the relatively short stretch of LE to see what that can take, and compare that to 21km of ROW between Willowbrook and Oakville. I think we are probably fine waiting 10-15 years for some of the existing backlog to clear before embarking on that project.
There are times to protect for future expansion, and we've seen plenty of examples of that through station upgrades and new bridges and grade separations, but this just may not be one of those times.
A 4th track along LW will have to happen eventually, but will be an expensive and complex project. If you look along the corridor, there will need to be a large number of retaining walls, sound barriers, grade separations, and new bridges. Look at the relatively short stretch of LE to see what that can take, and compare that to 21km of ROW between Willowbrook and Oakville. I think we are probably fine waiting 10-15 years for some of the existing backlog to clear before embarking on that project.
smallspy
Senior Member
You've gotten it.
Building stuff willy-nilly with no proper plan of its use does no benefit, save for the engineers and construction companies who design and build it. And maybe to future construction companies who get to rebuild it again in the future.
That's why building a bridge for a fourth track here with no plans of exactly how it integrates into the final configuration of the line and Long Branch Station is equally silly.
Dan
lastcommodore
Active Member
Raises the question: What exactly will need to be modified to allow 4th track to Oakville? From aerial imagery that I do see, 4th track ends at the Oakville-Canpa junction when the south track merges with the track north of it.
Other than, well, laying down new track alongside the other three:
- Rail over 30th Street bridge would have to be shifted north to allow south track, or Oakville-Campa junction will need to be reconfigured
- Browns Line tunnel needs to be widened
- LB needs to be reconfigured to turn north platform into an island platform, probably including an access to north side + a retaining wall for a north track
- Etobicoke Creek, Dixie Road, Cawthra, Cooksville Creek bridges all need to be widened to four tracks
- Port Credit would probably need an entire reconfiguration- The bridge over Hurontario allows an extra track on the south side, but that conflicts with the south platform, which is hardest to reconfigure as it's a side platform with the station building & parking. Meanwhile re configuring just the north island platform would require Hurontario bridge widening on the north side and rebuilding the north platform.
- Credit River, Mississauga Road bridge widening
- Clarkson reconfiguration, I suspect the easiest option would be bring the rail south of the southern island platform into revenue service, which would take away a rail from the freight yard
- Winston Churchill, Ford Dr, widening
I suspect if that project ever comes into force, MX will also want to grade separate many of the intersections.
Either way, MX needs to have a concrete plan on how they plan to enable 4 track service on LSW, so that when it *does* get around they havent shotgun'd themselves in the foot from previous decisions.
Other than, well, laying down new track alongside the other three:
- Rail over 30th Street bridge would have to be shifted north to allow south track, or Oakville-Campa junction will need to be reconfigured
- Browns Line tunnel needs to be widened
- LB needs to be reconfigured to turn north platform into an island platform, probably including an access to north side + a retaining wall for a north track
- Etobicoke Creek, Dixie Road, Cawthra, Cooksville Creek bridges all need to be widened to four tracks
- Port Credit would probably need an entire reconfiguration- The bridge over Hurontario allows an extra track on the south side, but that conflicts with the south platform, which is hardest to reconfigure as it's a side platform with the station building & parking. Meanwhile re configuring just the north island platform would require Hurontario bridge widening on the north side and rebuilding the north platform.
- Credit River, Mississauga Road bridge widening
- Clarkson reconfiguration, I suspect the easiest option would be bring the rail south of the southern island platform into revenue service, which would take away a rail from the freight yard
- Winston Churchill, Ford Dr, widening
I suspect if that project ever comes into force, MX will also want to grade separate many of the intersections.
Either way, MX needs to have a concrete plan on how they plan to enable 4 track service on LSW, so that when it *does* get around they havent shotgun'd themselves in the foot from previous decisions.
Bojaxs
Senior Member
Doubt that would fly with Petro Canada. Everytime I pass by that yard in the GO train, it's always packed to the gills with tankers.
Clearly that storage yard is being used at 100%.
lastcommodore
Active Member
Yeah, but that's basically the only option at Clarkson without expropriating some land, re configuring the station, and expanding the bridge. I reckon a deal could be struck where they extend the yard out east in exchange for converting the northern-most track of the yard to revenue service. I'm unsure of any other practical solutions to expanding Clarkson to 4 track.
Clarkson is my station. Those tankers are usually the sign to stand up and get ready to de-board, haha.
smallspy
Senior Member
There may be the odd additional item here or there, but you've listed all of the important ones. Of course, there's also the signal reconfiguration that needs to go with it, too.
MX has a rough idea of what they want the ultimate build-out to look like, but do they have a detailed idea? No, not yet. But mainly because there has been no money allocated to it, and so there simply hasn't been the impetus to get the engineering started.
In the meantime, there are some smaller projects that they can knock off which will help them get there - mainly things like grade separations.
Dan
JJTheJetPln
Active Member
Haven't been around to take photos since I'm super busy and the weather is terrible.
The bridge on Mississauga road in Brampton that crosses the Kitchener line is now open. Similar to the one on Goreway, it's just a means to keep traffic moving when trains are stopped.
The bridge on Mississauga road in Brampton that crosses the Kitchener line is now open. Similar to the one on Goreway, it's just a means to keep traffic moving when trains are stopped.
bpbpbpbp
New Member
Thank you to @ShonTron for posting about this in the Brampton Transit thread.
Brampton Transit is planning out its upgraded Downton Transit terminal with the planned Kitchener corridor upgrades and the LRT coming underground. Diagrams were provided containing layouts of the area, and clearly a third track and new platform are being envisioned. Expected just as much, but wished there was a fourth track going in, or space protected for at the very least (though I suppose it may be a very tight fit or even impossible). Wonder what the land acquisition deal with CN entails over trackage rights in Brampton, and if MX can have dibs over two tracks through there.
Brampton Transit is planning out its upgraded Downton Transit terminal with the planned Kitchener corridor upgrades and the LRT coming underground. Diagrams were provided containing layouts of the area, and clearly a third track and new platform are being envisioned. Expected just as much, but wished there was a fourth track going in, or space protected for at the very least (though I suppose it may be a very tight fit or even impossible). Wonder what the land acquisition deal with CN entails over trackage rights in Brampton, and if MX can have dibs over two tracks through there.
Bojaxs
Senior Member
Aren't they already having to demolish the nearby office building just to get the third track in there?
Or we could work with CN to build the Missing Link/ 407 freight bypass and give MX access to all three tracks and operate the Kitchener line similarly to the LSW line. Express service, etc.
I still don't fully understand how the recent track sharing agreement on the Kitchener line between CN and GO is suppose to work.
bpbpbpbp
New Member
Yup 8 Nelson St W is probably going to be gone for the third track.
I too don't completely understand how that agreement will work, my main concern is if and how MX will have access to two tracks, or if the third Downtown Brampton track will be in a sort of "passing" configuration, with trains going in both directions using that track.
As for the missing link proposal, it sounds absolutely amazing having a triple track corridor upto Georgetown. But the project doesn't seem feasible or very likely at this point, and with the CN land acquisition agreement, that seems kind of dead.
I do think that potentially some time in the future there will be *a* missing link built to get CN off the Halton for a future HSR route into Southwestern Ontario via Kitchener and London. In this case, a fourth track would be necessary to keep two for GO and two for HSR. A project like that would necessitate CN moving, and it would be the feds funding it, not the province. I'm wondering if anyone at MX has considered this.
JJTheJetPln
Active Member
While the missing link sounds like a great idea, we're essentially asking CN and CPKC to give up a large section of existing rail in order to benefit GO operation. While they can agree on the concept, moving CN/CPKC onto the missing link creates complex issues with schedules and whether or not either rail company wants the other operating on their rail or not.
This becomes especially apparent when CN operates a lot of their service out of the York Sub. I think the biggest issue is that the proposal is just that, a proposal. Both CN/CPKC would have their own ideas of what the missing link should look like, but whether or not it would benefit both of them remains to be seen if they have proposals of their own.
IIRC, the section labelled "5 Metrolinx Parking / Future Development" - The developers had to have their scope changed by the city to accommodate the third track by shedding one building and going from 3 condos to two in a different configuration.
In any case, it's easier said than done. I'm hopeful about this, but I also remain ambivalent about the start date of the project.
This becomes especially apparent when CN operates a lot of their service out of the York Sub. I think the biggest issue is that the proposal is just that, a proposal. Both CN/CPKC would have their own ideas of what the missing link should look like, but whether or not it would benefit both of them remains to be seen if they have proposals of their own.
It looks like 8 Nelson will just be rebuilt, but in a way to make it beneficial for the 3rd track. The sections labelled as "5 Existing Bus station" and "Potential LRT access" are both considered 8 Nelson.
IIRC, the section labelled "5 Metrolinx Parking / Future Development" - The developers had to have their scope changed by the city to accommodate the third track by shedding one building and going from 3 condos to two in a different configuration.
In any case, it's easier said than done. I'm hopeful about this, but I also remain ambivalent about the start date of the project.