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

ProjectEnd said:
You're not putting a third track on the unsupported middle (which is now largely open to below for drainage).
Click to expand...
Watch me! 😤

No, but seriously. Is there room on the Barrie line to put a third track? Is there room to widen the elevated guideway in the future? And yes, I'm talking waaaaay in the future.

Put another, single track, elevated guideway right next to the existing double track guideway.
 
Last edited:
Bojaxs said:
Watch me! 😤

No, but seriously. Is there room on the Barrie line to put a third track? Is there room to widen the elevated guideway in the future? And yes, I'm talking waaaaay in the future.
Click to expand...

Possible only If the linear park were sacrificed, perhaps....and I don't see any stripeof government supporting that.

I am still hunting for the documents which originally showed a third track, and I'm half remembering that they portrayed a separate guideway for that third track, implying it might be added later to one side of the double track flyover. I suspect these were pre-2010 plans. All of the 2015-2017 documents only show a double track - it was in that period that the "split roof" design was arrived at to allow greater natural light down below. The final EA report clearly states only two tracks.

So while one might still imagine a third track, I'd say it is irrevocably dead.

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
So while one might still imagine a third track, I'd say it is irrevocably dead.
Click to expand...
That's a shame. I think it should be the goal of MX to have at least 3 tracks on every line. The elevated guideway should have been made wide enough to accommodate a future, third track. Ah well.
 
Bojaxs said:
That's a shame. I think it should be the goal of MX to have at least 3 tracks on every line. The elevated guideway should have been made wide enough to accommodate a future, third track. Ah well.
Click to expand...
A basic express service should generally be achievable with 2 tracks so long as the bypassed stations have a third track. Stopping trains enter the platform-serviced tracks and yield to passing express trains when they re-enter a shared track.

This would at least allow either North or Southbound express services at a given time. There is a lot of potential if the service is organized well and this section near downtown becomes the only 2 lane bottle neck in the entire Barrie Line.

* This is all assuming no freight interference *
 
I wouldn’t put money on Barrie line express service, some stations have space for a third track roughed in, doubt it’s gonna be used
 
The 'Go Expansion Full Business Case' that was accepted by the Metrolinx Board in December 2018 has services that start in Barrie (Allandale) skipping King City and Maple. I believe the 15-minute 2-way service will now start in Newmarket rather than Aurora.

Using the the Kitchener line express + stopping trains operate as reference, the southbound connection at Newmarket/Aurora may be timed to be a 5 or 6 minute transfer from express to stopping, then the "express" will gain several minutes headway on the stopping train by missing 2 stations resulting in close to a 7.5 minute clock-face service from Rutherford to Union at peak times.
1710942214857.png
 
urbancog said:
The 'Go Expansion Full Business Case' that was accepted by the Metrolinx Board in December 2018 has services that start in Barrie (Allandale) skipping King City and Maple. I believe the 15-minute 2-way service will now start in Newmarket rather than Aurora.

Using the the Kitchener line express + stopping trains operate as reference, the southbound connection at Newmarket/Aurora may be timed to be a 5 or 6 minute transfer from express to stopping, then the "express" will gain several minutes headway on the stopping train by missing 2 stations resulting in close to a 7.5 minute clock-face service from Rutherford to Union at peak times.
View attachment 549714
Click to expand...
Where did you get that diagram? Are there more of them for the other lines?
 
ARG1 said:
This is a business case, not an engineering document. The graphics were probably done by someone whose sole understanding of trains is what the go train looks like.
Click to expand...
Yea but look how watered down the vision has fallen to reality. It's not like the vision was outlandish or utopian. It was strictly about money
 
cplchanb said:
Yea but look how watered down the vision has fallen to reality. It's not like the vision was outlandish or utopian. It was strictly about money
Click to expand...
I find the takes about how us not going with EMUs initially somehow is going to make the system worse and is a bad decision. Metrolinx clearly thought EMUs were going to be necessary from the initial business case, and then in the bid process, a consortium came in and said: "You don't need to spend all this money on EMUs right away; use your existing large coach inventory, run shorter trains, and buy some electric locomotives." There has been no indication that service will be slower or worse than the business case suggests; most rumours have been that service will be better. Less capital spent replacing perfectly good rolling stock means more capital for the infrastructure upgrades that are the real keys to better and faster service. Yes, we won't get shiny new EMUs right away, but most people won't care about that. I'm sure once GO is in a situation where more rolling stock is required, they will revisit EMUs to see if it is a good decision at that point. Nothing they are doing means we won't eventually get EMUs, but the path they are taking is likely the fastest and most cost-effective way to get electric service (no need to get full EMUs certified, just locomotives).
 
tsm1072 said:
I find the takes about how us not going with EMUs initially somehow is going to make the system worse and is a bad decision. Metrolinx clearly thought EMUs were going to be necessary from the initial business case, and then in the bid process, a consortium came in and said: "You don't need to spend all this money on EMUs right away; use your existing large coach inventory, run shorter trains, and buy some electric locomotives." There has been no indication that service will be slower or worse than the business case suggests; most rumours have been that service will be better. Less capital spent replacing perfectly good rolling stock means more capital for the infrastructure upgrades that are the real keys to better and faster service. Yes, we won't get shiny new EMUs right away, but most people won't care about that. I'm sure once GO is in a situation where more rolling stock is required, they will revisit EMUs to see if it is a good decision at that point. Nothing they are doing means we won't eventually get EMUs, but the path they are taking is likely the fastest and most cost-effective way to get electric service (no need to get full EMUs certified, just locomotives).
Click to expand...
Honestly I think there was an opportunity to convert bilevel cars to power cars and make d/emus from the existing trainsets. We would just need to order more cab cars. That's what they're doing in New jersey
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top