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

[DonValleyRainbow]

Apparently the NIMBYs can tolerate that Trichlorethylene infested wasteland that used to be the Lansdowne Carhouse which is why no one wants to touch it, or pay the $60 million to simply get rid of the poison.

For those who had never heard, like me, until now.

 

[interchange42]

If you want to hear the Toronto Design Review Panel's take on the bridge proposal, we have a front page story here.

42

 

[ADRM]

If you want to hear the Toronto Design Review Panel's take on the bridge proposal, we have a front page story here.

42

Good update. I wasn't there, but sounds like the DRP toed the line well—they seem to have provided sound constructive critical commentary without definitively (or at least extensively) weighing in on the merits of tunnel vs. berm/bridges, which is right given their lack of background.

I'm interested to know if new rail safety legislation has come into play at all in this debate. If I lived in that area, I'd be much more worried about the potentially catastrophic impact of a derailment than about the urban design aesthetics.

 

[gweed123]

Question: Was the option of elevating the CP corridor instead ever considered as an option? Seems to me that, in retrospect, building 1 elevated structure over 2 rail corridors would be less complicated than building 1 elevated and 1 underpass under 1 rail corridor. Also, the CP corridor is a) already on a berm east of the Junction, and b) is surrounded by a lot of industrial.

 

[mdrejhon]

Question: Was the option of elevating the CP corridor instead ever considered as an option? Seems to me that, in retrospect, building 1 elevated structure over 2 rail corridors would be less complicated than building 1 elevated and 1 underpass under 1 rail corridor. Also, the CP corridor is a) already on a berm east of the Junction, and b) is surrounded by a lot of industrial.

More complicated and more disruptive -- freight trains cannot climb as steeply as GO trains.

 

[ADRM]

Other question: Has speed of the GO Trains through the section in question been discussed as a part of the consultations? I used to live on Walmer Rd. very close to the CP line and mandated reduction in speeds made a world of difference in terms of noise and physical disruption (and I'm no expert, but one would assume in safety as well).

 

[David Brake]

I'll be writing a followup story tomorrow so any more questions/comments about the latest consultation (or our story!) would be welcome. Was anyone here at the latest consultation meeting?

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Other question: Has speed of the GO Trains through the section in question been discussed as a part of the consultations? I used to live on Walmer Rd. very close to the CP line and mandated reduction in speeds made a world of difference in terms of noise and physical disruption (and I'm no expert, but one would assume in safety as well).

Safety is definitely the number one concern, but as for noise, freight trains are rough and rumbly pieces of machinery comparative to passenger trains. Furthermore, Metrolinx is adopting vibration mats and other innovative sound attenuation for its new track construction, I don't think reducing their speed would do much.

 

[ADRM]

Safety is definitely the number one concern, but as for noise, freight trains are rough and rumbly pieces of machinery comparative to passenger trains. Furthermore, Metrolinx is adopting vibration mats and other innovative sound attenuation for its new track construction, I don't think reducing their speed would do much.

Interesting. In my experience, the concern was less the noise as it was the vibration. I lived probably 200-300m from the tracks and my house still vibrated when the train rolled on by. Hopefully, as you say, that's abated by both technology and the type of train in this case (though I'm skeptical because these are still very large carriages we're talking about).

Agree with you again, though, that safety is the number one concern. So, @DavidBrake, to answer your question, I'd be interested to know more about what's been promised in terms of enhancing the rail safety specifically as it pertains to derailments. And it'd be great to know if there's an updated project timeline, considering the community furor over the proposal, and what that process looks like from here to approval and construction.

 

[gweed123]

More complicated and more disruptive -- freight trains cannot climb as steeply as GO trains.

Yes, it would need to be a longer incline for sure. But that whole line is already effectively on a berm. Could it not be a gradually increasing berm?

 

[crs1026]

Question: Was the option of elevating the CP corridor instead ever considered as an option? Seems to me that, in retrospect, building 1 elevated structure over 2 rail corridors would be less complicated than building 1 elevated and 1 underpass under 1 rail corridor. Also, the CP corridor is a) already on a berm east of the Junction, and b) is surrounded by a lot of industrial.

It was considered but had signifigant downside, as noted.

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/aboutus...lise_Croll_Davenport_Overpass_Overview_EN.pdf

- Paul

 

[drum118]

Question: Was the option of elevating the CP corridor instead ever considered as an option? Seems to me that, in retrospect, building 1 elevated structure over 2 rail corridors would be less complicated than building 1 elevated and 1 underpass under 1 rail corridor. Also, the CP corridor is a) already on a berm east of the Junction, and b) is surrounded by a lot of industrial.

Given CP needs .7% grade to get over the diamond, it will not be able to connect to the MacTier Sub or the Lambton Yard.

To connect to the MacTier Sub, you would need it elevated at this point and the lower it going north.

Since the Lambton yard is being down graded, where would the interchange yard be between CN & CP to deal with the grade ramp??

Where do you start in the east for this grade ramp so it not interfering with current grade crossing.

Up side to the elevated line is the removal of current grade crossing.

Down side to this proposal the the fear from the residents and buildings along the ramp that trains will fall off it and do more damage than being at grade as well having an impact on residents living about the current tracks.

Most of all, CP would not want it regardless if it was built free for them. It would have a major impact on their service while building it as well slowing down the train speed using it. It would not to be able to service TTC Hillcrest siding as well storing cars on line.

You need to be 35 feet underside of the CP bridge over the Barrie line and that would put the start of the east ramp about 5,000 feet to the east and about 5,000 feet west of Keele St.

Doing this just cost Metrolinx and the taxpayers $400 million for the Toronto West Diamond Grade Separation that was just built.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Safety is definitely the number one concern, but as for noise, freight trains are rough and rumbly pieces of machinery comparative to passenger trains. Furthermore, Metrolinx is adopting vibration mats and other innovative sound attenuation for its new track construction, I don't think reducing their speed would do much.

The trains will be electric after a few years anyway, you will barely notice them go by. Electric trains are very quiet.

 

[ADRM]

The trains will be electric after a few years anyway, you will barely notice them go by. Electric trains are very quiet.

The problem is that engine-related noise is only part of the equation. The ground literally shakes in reasonably close proximity to heavy trains, the carriages themselves rumble over the tracks, the connectors bump into one another, etc.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Another thing is they are looking like many of them will be euro spec trains, which are way, way lighter than north american trains. To a certian extent, yes, but I wouldn't expect it to be any louder overall than existing diesel trains running through.