GO Transit: Davenport Diamond Grade Separation | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

RedRocket191

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 30, 2007
Messages
2,306
Reaction score
0
I have heard it said that there is no signalling on this line north of Aurora. If this is true, does signalling need to be installed to have bidirectional traffic?

TOS

The information that I have shows that north of CN CONCORD (Mile 15.5) the tracks is under Occupancy Control System rules. This means that trains have to call in and receive verbal clearance to proceed. In theory it doesn't need to be upgraded if all trains are always on time, but reality is very different.
 

yyzhyd

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
417
Reaction score
85
Do you mean Snider (Newmarket Line) or Hagerman (Stouffville Line)? I'm pretty sure Hagerman (on the Stouffville Line, also passing under 14th Avenue, is only a single-track wide underpass, even though Stouffville has amazing potential, more so than the other York Region GO lines.

I ride the Stouffville GO daily and can confirm that the Hagerman underpass is designed for two-track operations. In fact they have already begun bringing in material to lay down the second (passing) track from Denison Rd. north to Unionville Station.
 

EnviroTO

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
4,608
Reaction score
1,738
Location
Yonge & Mt.Pleasant
This is a proposal that surfaced a couple of years ago and there has been no further mention of it until now. They were planning on an overpass rather that a depressed corridor before and the community was concerned. It seems that the plans on this corridor and the Georgetown assume that there is no possible way to put a road at grade and depress a rail corridor where there is currently rail at grade and a road underpass. It seems obvious to me that you could either close the road temporarily with detours or create a temporary level crossing at or below grade during construction but it seems beyond the creative abilities of the people working on these things. If you suggest a depressed corridor under Dupont in the Davenport Grade Separation project they will probably draw a whacked out proposal where the rail corridor passes under the existing Dupont underpass which is obviously prohibitively expensive being so deep underground.
 

vic

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 17, 2007
Messages
1,409
Reaction score
1,880
Location
Carleton Village
This is a proposal that surfaced a couple of years ago and there has been no further mention of it until now. They were planning on an overpass rather that a depressed corridor before and the community was concerned. It seems that the plans on this corridor and the Georgetown assume that there is no possible way to put a road at grade and depress a rail corridor where there is currently rail at grade and a road underpass. It seems obvious to me that you could either close the road temporarily with detours or create a temporary level crossing at or below grade during construction but it seems beyond the creative abilities of the people working on these things. If you suggest a depressed corridor under Dupont in the Davenport Grade Separation project they will probably draw a whacked out proposal where the rail corridor passes under the existing Dupont underpass which is obviously prohibitively expensive being so deep underground.

I also heard from someone in my neighbourhood that this whole idea was brought up a few years ago. Do you know if there's any documentation online anywhere about it?
 

Prometheus The Supremo

►Member №41+⅜◄
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
4,107
Reaction score
5
Location
a strange reality, bizarro toronto
that's a pretty tight area to work within. it will be surprising to see what kind of solution they will come up with to create the flying junction.
 

vic

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 17, 2007
Messages
1,409
Reaction score
1,880
Location
Carleton Village
Email from Adam Giambrone

Adam Giambrone (he’s one of the local councillors in this case) sent the following email last night.

From: Councillor Giambrone
Date : Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 7:10 PM
Subject: GO Transit Davenport Diamond EA Grade Separation Open House

Dear Resident,

Yesterday I met with GO Transit about their proposal for their Davenport Diamond Rail to Rail Grade Separation Project. They provided me with the attached image of the Snider rail to rail grade separation as an example of the kind of major structure they are proposing to run through our community.

I also was told that they had only advertised their upcoming open house, being held on Wednesday, April 22nd, in local newspapers. They have not sent a single flyer into our community to alert people to the major infrastructure they are proposing to build. This is clearly not good enough, so I have undertaken to have flyers delivered door to door over the next few days to the area bounded by Bloor, Dupont, Symington and Lansdowne to alert people to the upcoming open house. I have attached a copy of the GO Transit flyer for those who do not have it already.

I encourage you to distribute these GO Transit materials to interested residents so that people can either attend their open house, or call them directly, to tell GO Transit what you think about their proposal.

Yours truly,

Adam Giambrone
Toronto City Councillor
Ward 18 Davenport
Chair, Toronto Transit Commission (TTC)

Toronto City Hall, Suite C42
100 Queen Street West
Toronto ON M5H 2N2

(416) 392-7012
www.adamgiambrone.ca
Snider%20Rail%20Over%20Rail%20Grade%20Seperation_GO.jpg
 

vegeta_skyline

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 4, 2008
Messages
1,931
Reaction score
121
Do you mean Snider (Newmarket Line) or Hagerman (Stouffville Line)? I'm pretty sure Hagerman (on the Stouffville Line, also passing under 14th Avenue, is only a single-track wide underpass, even though Stouffville has amazing potential, more so than the other York Region GO lines.

Stouffville may have great potential due to the population base along the line, but the rail corridor itself my prohibit it from reaching its full potential. It has a maximum speed of 50mph and much slower in many areas due to the degree of curvature and numerous level crossings.

This better not end up like the Sniderman diamond where they only left enough space for one track.

As has been mentioned this is indeed not the case at all. Both Sinder (bridge structure) & Hagerman (tunnel) have space for 2 tracks.


I have heard it said that there is no signalling on this line north of Aurora. If this is true, does signalling need to be installed to have bidirectional traffic?

The information that I have shows that north of CN CONCORD (Mile 15.5) the tracks is under Occupancy Control System rules. This means that trains have to call in and receive verbal clearance to proceed. In theory it doesn't need to be upgraded if all trains are always on time, but reality is very different.

It definitely should not happen.
Its not practical to run a proper all-day service with OCS only.

If GO wants to run a single train back and forth on the line then there is no conflict in OCS. This is what they do now mid-day on the Weston sub. But that service only extends to Bramalea and the distance is half as long (17 miles) as East Gwillimbury (35.5 miles) or Bradford (41.5) and the Weston service is lightly used because it is very limited leaving Bramalea once every hour and a half.
Having one train run on the Barrie line all day to East Gwillimbury or Bradford wouldn’t even be worthwhile to run. It takes a train about an hour & 10 mins to travel from Bradford to Union then add at least 10 minutes at each end for the train to change ends and do the required brake tests. Basically it would take a train almost an hour & a half to travel each way. That means a the train would leave Bradford once every 3 hours!!
But GO may just go ahead and do this to start because there are no addition costs for the start up.

To run an hourly service, the minimum to be worthwhile, you’d need 3 trains on the line at the same time. This would create a meeting point every 20 minutes between these trains and that’s were problems with the OCS system comes into play. Obviously to start ‘passing tracks’ would need to be built in several location as the line is currently single track in its entirety (there is a ‘service track’ for the York University station, this could be used as a meeting point) In OCS there are no signals and thereby there are no electronically/remotely control switches. Meaning every time trains are to met, one train has to come to a complete stop. A crew member has to get off and ‘line a switch’ by hand. Then the train can go into the passing track/siding, usually at a very slow speed (15mph) and then come to the other end of the track and then wait for train traveling in the opposite direction to pass by. That process alone can ‘waste’ 10 minutes.
If there is just one single delay for either train it compounds the problem. If the train that’s going into the siding is delayed, the train that uses the main line has to slow down and come to a stop and wait until the train has entered into the siding. If the main line train is delayed, the train that’s in the siding has to wait until that train has passed them before they can come out. Once the mainline trains has passed then a crew member from the siding train has to line the switch again for there train to come out at a slow speed. This whole process, while working fine with freight trains, is a huge waste of efficiency in terms of time & energy for a passenger train working on a precise schedule.

2 track OCS would never be allow for high-speed GO trains because if a switch connecting the 2 tracks was every turned the wrong way it could lead to a huge disaster, worse than anything Canada’s ever seen. The signal system (CTC) is fail-safe and will not permit this to happen or allow a train into a block (area) where another train is present.

As mentioned OCS on this line begins at Concord which is located exactly at Langstaff rd. in Vaughan.
The line needs to be upgraded to CTC (Centralized Traffic Control system – signaled track) if they want to run frequent all-day two way traffic.

I ride the Stouffville GO daily and can confirm that the Hagerman underpass is designed for two-track operations. In fact they have already begun bringing in material to lay down the second (passing) track from Denison Rd. north to Unionville Station.

Same thing applies on the Uxbridge sub, except that in this case the entire line is OCS. I can’t believe that they’d even consider putting just a passing track there in OCS. They should double-track the line and install CTC – the signal system. But it looks like their going the inefficient route, just because of the costs…

Btw, I run GO trains for a living and I’ve run a train on all the aforementioned lines.
I dislike stopping at Unionville station, its such a ridiculous grade to build a station on. They should have re-graded the track in that area. First you go down into the tunnel at a 2% grade, then you go back up to the 407 underpass at a 2% grade, only to go back down into Unionville at another 2% grade.

I hope that this grade separation results in a depressed Barrie line instead of an enormous bridge.

If you suggest a depressed corridor under Dupont in the Davenport Grade Separation project they will probably draw a whacked out proposal where the rail corridor passes under the existing Dupont underpass which is obviously prohibitively expensive being so deep underground.

I’d have to assume that the Newmarket sub (Barrie line) will pass over the CP North Toronto sub for this grade separation simply because there’s already a downgrade greater than 1.0% approaching the Davenport Diamond from the north. South of the diamond the downgrade is a little more than half as much. Then again the powers that be might want to have Dupont St. pass over the tracks and not under, in that case the Newmarket sub would go under the CP line. The Dupont St. underpass would be removed and made level, making for a much friendlier streetscape. The same thing should have been done just south of the West Toronto Jct.
Raise Dupont and make it level and have the Weston sub pass under it. As it is planed trains going north on the Weston sub will have to go uphill, pass over Dupont, then go downhill and pass under the CP North Toronto sub and then go uphill again to pass over St. Clair. Instead of being on level ground while passing under Dupont & the CP tracks and then going uphill to pass over St. Clair. But again, cost is an issue.

that's a pretty tight area to work within. it will be surprising to see what kind of solution they will come up with to create the flying junction.

The large building south-east of the Davenport diamond has just recently been demolished. Not sure though if it has anything to do with this project, but i'd would give them some space to play with.
 
Last edited:

drum118

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
18,312
Reaction score
17,039
Location
Mississauga, where cars rule city growth
This will have to be elevated. Doing so will be some fun.

By doing so, the current bridges on Dupont and Davenport Rd can be remove allowing the exist roads to be level allowing better use of the land.

Keep on not stopping off for the past few years to get some shots of this area. Time to do so.
 

drum118

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
18,312
Reaction score
17,039
Location
Mississauga, where cars rule city growth
Davenport bridge that will support 3 tracks. Notice hydro wires as will have impact on elevated plan since there not enough distance between the bridge and crossing for fly under.
IMG_april-19-09-0113.jpg


Looking north toward Davenport
IMG_april-19-09-0140.jpg


IMG_april-19-09-0132.jpg


Buildings removed for development at Dupont and has no bearing on this corridor
IMG_april-19-09-0138.jpg


Looking west
IMG_april-19-09-0153.jpg


looking south and the Dupont bridge will support 3 tracks
IMG_april-19-09-0155.jpg


Looking east
IMG_april-19-09-0157.jpg


May have to take back this parking that built into the corridor at Wallace. The elevation/fly under would have to start south of here as not enough distance for 2% grade by Dupont. Only 8 Townhouses south will have some impact with elevation section starting south of here
IMG_april-19-09-0176.jpg


My gardens
IMG_april-19-09-0189.jpg


IMG_april-19-09-0177.jpg


Bloor Bridge will support 2 tracks with room for 3
IMG_april-19-09-0193.jpg


My house been raided.
IMG_april-19-09-0195.jpg


Will have to take over some of No Frills parking lot for 2/3 tracks corridor, but not much.
IMG_april-19-09-0206.jpg
 

vegeta_skyline

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 4, 2008
Messages
1,931
Reaction score
121
Will have to take over some of No Frills parking lot for 2/3 tracks corridor, but not much.

There are no plans to 3 track this corridor and no need to. The planned service increases and demand increases will only require 2 tracks. Also the Newmarket sub will be extended to Bathurst yard as only a single track. (The Weston sub will be 3-4 tracks in this area and the Galt 2 tracks, 7 tracks is the maximum this corridor can handle)
Metrolinx 25 year plan only makes provisions for bi-direction, 2-way, regional rail NOT express rail.
Quite honestly while demand will no doubt significantly increase in this corridor(2,603,600 trips in 2007) over the next couple of decades I can not envision it reaching even the current rider ship levels of the Lakeshore East corridor(11,380,100 trips in 2007). Also the Lakeshore East corridor has provided sufficient service for that many commuters despite being only 2 tracks for over 90% of its length and having VIA service run along that line as well something that won't be an issue on the Barrie line.
 

Top