Hamilton-Niagara passenger rail enhancements

[crs1026]

Haven't thought this through in any detail but I am wondering if the topography would allow a "Victoria Bridge solution" which would duplicate the railway bridge a boatlength or two downstream or upstream at the existing elevation.. The point being to be able to route around boats transiting the flight locks so these are not impeded.

The potential benefit would be much less civil work of both tunnel and gradients.

A diverging bridgeway would not be cheap, but might be affordable and doable.

It's beyond me to model the curvature and elevation. But I will throw it in the ring as a fantasy thought. (Can't remember - has that been suggested and discussed before?)

- Paul

 

[ShonTron]

I’m coming to the conclusion that if we really want a fast Toronto-Buffalo train that we just use the existing and underused three track Welland rail tunnel and have it skip St. Catharines, which could continue to be served by regional rail between Toronto, Hamilton, and Niagara Falls, with a new Merriton stop.

It would require negotiation with CP and upgrades of the former TH&B corridor through Hamilton and Smithville (and partial reactivation of the NYC track to the Fallsview area for tourist runs) but it’d be a lot quicker.

 

[Sauga89]

Haven't thought this through in any detail but I am wondering if the topography would allow a "Victoria Bridge solution" which would duplicate the railway bridge a boatlength or two downstream or upstream at the existing elevation.. The point being to be able to route around boats transiting the flight locks so these are not impeded.

The potential benefit would be much less civil work of both tunnel and gradients.

A diverging bridgeway would not be cheap, but might be affordable and doable.

It's beyond me to model the curvature and elevation. But I will throw it in the ring as a fantasy thought. (Can't remember - has that been suggested and discussed before?)

- Paul

Yes, it has come up before.

Unfortunately the terrain you ploughing through is super steep(like the start of the niagara escarpment steep), and would definitely drive up the cost of a tunnel in that location. It would also require to start further back for it to not be past the 4% grade.

I would actually recommend a "St. Lambert Locks solution", where you have two draw bridges far enough apart for one to remain open during ship movement. If you start at the same spot and head north, to a new glendale road-rail-bike drawbridge, then you would have enough distance, grade, and curvature to do it for both passenger AND freight (giving CN incentive to support the project)

One solution to the TO Transit Welland Canal crossing I have not seen mentioned is that of the Victoria rail bridge over the St Lawrence Seaway. The rail line has two paths over the seaway lock, one at each. When a ship is entering or leaving the lock at one end, trains take the path over the other end of the lock - and vice versa. The result is only limited, if any, disruption to rail service - a combination of CN freight, VIA Montreal to / from both Quebec City and the Maritimes, as well as EXO local commuter trains

View attachment 627689


From an initial look at the area of the CN rail line crossing the Welland Canal, it appears that this might be a feasible approach, with maybe only limited acquisition any already improved property.

I was going to bring it up myself, but I wanted to see how much interest there was in this new thread before spamming it with ideas. The twin flight locks complicate things, but I've been following the live ship traffic map of the canal since @AHK suggested it in January, and it seems vanishingly rare for two ships to pass in opposite direction through the locks (thus keeping both bridges open). I like it better than the embankment bridge or a tunnel, and I think you could put together a pretty reliable service with it. The only thing I worry about is whether a lift bridge structure between locks 4 and 5 would shrink the lock length for ships. The St. Lambert lock is longer (EDIT: and is just the one lock, not a series), and so it has room to accommodate the extra lift bridge.

 

[innsertnamehere]

I’m coming to the conclusion that if we really want a fast Toronto-Buffalo train that we just use the existing and underused three track Welland rail tunnel and have it skip St. Catharines, which could continue to be served by regional rail between Toronto, Hamilton, and Niagara Falls, with a new Merriton stop.

It would require negotiation with CP and upgrades of the former TH&B corridor through Hamilton and Smithville (and partial reactivation of the NYC track to the Fallsview area for tourist runs) but it’d be a lot quicker.

I'm not convinced that upgrades to the CP corridor through Hamilton and up the escarpment to enable this service would be any cheaper than dealing with the Welland Canal. Besides, the CP alignment misses basically every major destination on the Niagara Peninsula just to deliver a connection to Buffalo, a relatively minor destination as a whole. It doesn't integrate with Amtrak well either, which will want to continue to run services to Niagara Falls NY.

We don't need to address CN freight service, just passenger service over the canal. Which means a cheap (relatively), Davenport-Diamond type bridge. $300 million and it's done at most.

The solution is to continue to invest on the CN corridor which serves much higher demand patterns and can support long term, high quality rail service to the peninsula and beyond. We just have to bite the proverbial bullet and address the Welland Canal.

 

[jcam]

I’m coming to the conclusion that if we really want a fast Toronto-Buffalo train that we just use the existing and underused three track Welland rail tunnel and have it skip St. Catharines, which could continue to be served by regional rail between Toronto, Hamilton, and Niagara Falls, with a new Merriton stop.

It would require negotiation with CP and upgrades of the former TH&B corridor through Hamilton and Smithville (and partial reactivation of the NYC track to the Fallsview area for tourist runs) but it’d be a lot quicker.

I was thinking the same thing, that diversion to the Welland tunnel might make sense. Similar to the addition of 2 tracks under the 401 on Kitchener, the grades allow the potential for an additional tunnel to be added under the canal if required. Arguably, the track layout into Niagara could also allow a very central terminal station adjacent to the Marriott Fallsview.

The question is whether the southern dogleg would add too much time, or could you increase speed to compensate. Benefits are that Welland could get a stop. Train service to St. Catharine's could be maintained and run as an alternate terminal, similar to Hamilton James St.

If the mid-peninsula 400-series highway to Fort Erie ever came to fruition, you could likely couple the tunnel expansion with adding road capacity as well.

 

[Northern Light]

Besides, the CP alignment misses basically every major destination on the Niagara Peninsula just to deliver a connection to Buffalo, a relatively minor destination as a whole. It doesn't integrate with Amtrak well either, which will want to continue to run services to Niagara Falls NY.

I'm not arguing for this choice......but....

The CP sub into Niagara while greatly reduced in size, still comes up almost to Fallsview Casino, (~500m) and to within 1.6km of Clifton Hill, that's closer than the current GO/VIA station at 2.2km to Clifton Hill, and 3.3km to the Casino/Falls.

We don't need to address CN freight service, just passenger service over the canal. Which means a cheap (relatively), Davenport-Diamond type bridge. $300 million and it's done at most.

Sure.............but....the numbers I've looked at are higher than 300M.

Also, I'd be surprised if that type of investment didn't coincide with a purchase of the Grimsby sub by Mx

Speed-raising investment (better track condition, more track) adds to the bill as well.

None of which is to suggest I don't favour the existing alignment as the better overall investment in a world of finite dollars.

 

[Sauga89]

I'm not arguing for this choice......but....

The CP sub into Niagara while greatly reduced in size, still comes up almost to Fallsview Casino, (~500m) and to within 1.6km of Clifton Hill, that's closer than the current GO/VIA station at 2.2km to Clifton Hill, and 3.3km to the Casino/Falls.



Sure.............but....the numbers I've looked at are higher than 300M.

Also, I'd be surprised if that type of investment didn't coincide with a purchase of the Grimsby sub by Mx

Speed-raising investment (better track condition, more track) adds to the bill as well.

None of which is to suggest I don't favour the existing alignment as the better overall investment in a world of finite dollars.

I'm warming, as I've said, to the idea of a second lift bridge on the current alignment like at St Lambert lock.

I've previously advocated in other threads however, for the old Thorold South CN rail bridge to be re-built, and for the CN industrial spur from Port Robinson to be extended 2 km eastwards to meet CP's Montrose spur.

There also isn't anything I can see preventing another lift bridge from being built somewhere between Thorold and Port Robinson in case the rebuilt Thorold South bridge was up when a train arrived.

For me, I think the choice between the existing alignment and CP's comes down to whether or not the government is willing to relay track south from the existing Niagara Falls station towards a new station closer to the falls. If it is willing to lay track along the rail trail, then I like the existing alignment. If it isn't, then I like CP's alignment better because the GO station would be at the falls themselves.

 

[Sunnyside]

I'm not convinced that upgrades to the CP corridor through Hamilton and up the escarpment to enable this service would be any cheaper than dealing with the Welland Canal(..)

We don't need to address CN freight service, just passenger service over the canal. Which means a cheap (relatively), Davenport-Diamond type bridge. $300 million and it's done at most.

The solution is to continue to invest on the CN corridor which serves much higher demand patterns and can support long term, high quality rail service to the peninsula and beyond. We just have to bite the proverbial bullet and address the Welland Canal.

Yes yes and yes…

The canal is THE problem for Niagara-centric rail transit. But its problems do not necessarily need to hold up all transit expansion in lieu. Ideally, Niagara could be capable of addressing *just* this core problem themselves.

Given that’s unrealistic, take Welland, Bayview, CP’s Hamilton tunnel, etc., and acknowledge them, Isolate them, and contemplate solutions between them while resolutions are beyond the pale. For that I’ll do my part and dub the region’s paramount $1-2B problems “the three B’s”. Feel free to debate.

To tie this together, (maybe my posts in other threads about Ham-St.Cats service could be moved), I believe in implementing other ‘inbetween’ services, like a St. Cats-NF shuttle, or St.Cats-Welland, etc., too.

I'm not arguing for this choice......but....

The CP sub into Niagara while greatly reduced in size, still comes up almost to Fallsview Casino, (~500m) and to within 1.6km of Clifton Hill, that's closer than the current GO/VIA station at 2.2km to Clifton Hill, and 3.3km to the Casino/Falls.

Also, I'd be surprised if that type of investment didn't coincide with a purchase of the Grimsby sub by Mx

Would it be easier to say CP’s corridor is better for intercity-esque service, while CN’s is best for local and regional trips? Save for the casino where it’s a tossup, a speedy trip into NF then Buffalo seems like a longer-term beneficial addition than a near-term ‘either-or’.

You’ve mentioned CN has contemplated selling the Grimsby sub to Metrolinx, but im struggling to square that. The freight which runs through Niagara disappearing would not bode well for the region. Unless CN is willing to run the trains on favourable lease-backed time slots alone, but this isn’t exactly one or two small customers we’re talking about…

 

[crs1026]

Playing amateur civil engineer here, the "St Lambert" solution at Thorold would simply be a flyover over the middle flight lock basically at grade. Trains can be routed either on the current route if no boats are using the lowest flight lock, or on the alternate route if they are present. This does not create a conflict-free solution, but it does greatly increase the flexibility such that trains are likely to have a usable route while boats are present, and train-related boat delays are reduced.

The boats have priority not so much by policy but more by the reality of how long it takes for them to pass - once their route is lined, the bridge must stay up, and a train will have to wait.

I have ignored all known fact about things that may sit in the way, my theory is those things might be movable for less cost than either tunnel or high-clearance flyover. That's the nice thing about drawing on Photoshop napkins.

- Paul

 

[Northern Light]

Would it be easier to say CP’s corridor is better for intercity-esque service, while CN’s is best for local and regional trips? Save for the casino where it’s a tossup, a speedy trip into NF then Buffalo seems like a longer-term beneficial addition than a near-term ‘either-or’.

In a world with unlimited, or at least greater monetary resources, I think both would be worthy of consideration. In the near term, I certainly think the CP spur should be protected, and consideration given to its medium/long term restoration further into the Falls (this would require relocating/developing Fallsview which I'm not suggesting is a near term priority, just don't let that happen w/o considering the value of a re-extended ROW).

But I don't see the case for a large capital investment.

You’ve mentioned CN has contemplated selling the Grimsby sub to Metrolinx, but im struggling to square that. The freight which runs through Niagara disappearing would not bode well for the region. Unless CN is willing to run the trains on favourable lease-backed time slots alone, but this isn’t exactly one or two small customers we’re talking about…

CN doesn't route that much traffic on Grimsby, its not nothing, but a lot of it could be moved in off-hours.

 

[bearcat]

Is this bridge over the canal a more worthwhile investment than if pretty much the exact same bridge was built to the south for the railway? The province seems to have money for it. I guess the rationale is to add shoulders and have a way to divert traffic to rehab the old bridge?

Garden City Skyway twinning: Niagara-on-the-Lake, province reach detailed agreement on new bridge, road realignments

A Transportation Ministry official says a website will allow the public to comment on the design of the new bridge.

www.niagarathisweek.com

 

[innsertnamehere]

Is this bridge over the canal a more worthwhile investment than if pretty much the exact same bridge was built to the south for the railway? The province seems to have money for it. I guess the rationale is to add shoulders and have a way to divert traffic to rehab the old bridge?

Garden City Skyway twinning: Niagara-on-the-Lake, province reach detailed agreement on new bridge, road realignments

A Transportation Ministry official says a website will allow the public to comment on the design of the new bridge.

www.niagarathisweek.com

The Garden City Skyway project is more rehabilitation driven. The QEW doesn't really need more capacity in the area, but the existing bridge is aging and needs maintenance. Which either means a multi-year Gardiner-like construction staging with long term lane closures, or building a second bridge and moving traffic onto it while you fix the other one.

 

[Sauga89]

In the near term, I certainly think the CP spur should be protected, and consideration given to its medium/long term restoration further into the Falls (this would require relocating/developing Fallsview

If you're talking about re-locating the Fallsview to extend the CP line as a through line... I'm not certain the existing building even needs to come down.
I've looked at it, and I would be very curious to see where the foundation pilings of the tower sit, because I think the tower itself isn't on the old CP right of way. I harbour a secret fantasy of tunnelling through or beneath the basement loading dock/parking level of the casino. I'm not sure it would work though. The grey garage door in the bottom centre represents about where the old CP line ran, and leads into basement parking/logistics with not much above.

 

[Sauga89]

CN doesn't route that much traffic on Grimsby, its not nothing, but a lot of it could be moved in off-hours.

Or re-routed. I've checked and the right of way between Caledonia and Welland is intact and hasn't been sold off. It's about 50 km of track you'd have to re-build, but the land is there. (EDIT: No canal crossing though, so you'd have to build a new bridge or talk CP into sharing their under-utilized tunnel)

 

[Sunnyside]

In a world with unlimited, or at least greater monetary resources, I think both would be worthy of consideration. In the near term, I certainly think the CP spur should be protected, and consideration given to its medium/long term restoration further into the Falls (this would require relocating/developing Fallsview which I'm not suggesting is a near term priority, just don't let that happen w/o considering the value of a re-extended ROW).

But I don't see the case for a large capital investment.

Agreed, just wanted to clarify that we aren’t writing off the possible utility- it’s just not high on the list.

CN doesn't route that much traffic on Grimsby, its not nothing, but a lot of it could be moved in off-hours.

I guess in the grand scheme of CN operations it isn’t that much, moreso that it’s consistent and economically-indicative traffic. But yes, existing industrial traffic should easily be shifted to odd times of day…

I’m actually more concerned about any increases in freight volumes coming from Steelport, HOPA and general intermodal growth. It might not alter much, but it could make things more rigid, or more likely have CN think twice about selling.

Not that it should bear on this discussion, but economic uncertainties have put our industries in the spotlight. Whether the nation buckles from tariffs or successfully pivots to new markets, it will play out precisely here.