News   Nov 27, 2024
 808     4 
News   Nov 27, 2024
 690     1 
News   Nov 27, 2024
 1K     1 

Toronto Regional Board of Trade Regional Rail Report

Is quad tracking the CN North Toronto Sub possible?

I need clarity on what your asking.

Do you mean the mid-town railway tracks that cross Yonge near Summerhill?

Those are CP's tracks and are called the Galt Sub

CN's main tracks in terms of Toronto are to the north and west are called the Halton/York sub, passing in/around the 407 corridor north of the City.
 
I need clarity on what your asking.

Do you mean the mid-town railway tracks that cross Yonge near Summerhill?

Those are CP's tracks and are called the Galt Sub

CN's main tracks in terms of Toronto are to the north and west are called the Halton/York sub, passing in/around the 407 corridor north of the City.

Is quadtracking the CP mainline through Toronto possible?
 
Is quadtracking the CP mainline through Toronto possible?

In general, the west end of the corridor from The Junction to Summerhill is already more than large enough to support that, yes.

There would be a cost, but subject to CP's agreement its fairly straight forward.

Where you go east of Rosedale there are some limitations (which an can be overcome, but will cost $$$, may spark opposition from some property owners adjacent the ROW.)

This is an overhead image of the corridor at Dovercourt, and you can see the space available in the ROW:

1617226069431.png


Obiviously, new track woudl be required and some new rail bridges as well, but no property acquisition.

Below is a section just east of Yonge, which might require an embankment widening (though the ROW is large enough).

1617226338582.png


Hideously expensive though, would be quad-tracking the bridges (meaning a new bridge) over the West Don Valley:

1617226468974.png


East of this area, there may be costs for retaining walls in some locations (and other bridge works)

This is the ROW east of Victoria Park Avenue:

1617226722957.png


In summation;

Yes it is do-able, but some portions would be quite expensive; while others would be much easier to implement.

Adding passenger rail here is viable; but as it is CP's mainline, unless one is displacing CP traffic somewhere else, large investments would be required.

Though, universal 4-tracking may not, in fact be required on all segments (though it certainly makes frequent service much easier.)
 
Can Metrolinx just hire the team that wrote this report?

What?

Did you just suggest Mx hire people with ambition and bold ideas about how to improve transit?

Pffft; tell me another one.
 
Is quad tracking the CN North Toronto Sub possible?
No and in most cases not even 4/6 tracks without rebuilding bridges and building retaining walls to get 4/6 tracks in. All you go to do is go to a few bridges in the east and look at CN corridor. If I remember correctly, Yonge St is a good example.

This is why I have stated in the past the so call Missing Link and having CP on CN track will not be cheap as everyone saying while opposing the whole thing as it open the doors to more cost and problems. Only take one major derailment to have both RR dead in the water.

To have CN as part of an RER system, bucks will have to be spent to do it, but needs to be in the big picture.
 
As it stands now, GO is on the south side around the Humber River to the cut off and on the north side for rest of the route to Milton. There has been a plan from day one to have a GO fly under at the Humber area. Between the fly under on GO on opposite side of CP Mainline that will have 2 + 2 tracks in the corridor, there is nothing stopping the line being electrify other than the Streetsville area yard and cut off. To deal with that area, you will need to build 2 more fly under to have the GO tracks on the south side starting at the 403 and then west of the Meadowvale station. This mean rebuilding the Meadowvale station with a centre platform and a side one.

CP has seen that 4 track corridor as having 3 tracks to use when needed than their current 1-2 tracks. If you really want to please CP and have electrify tracks, you build 5 track where it can be done and there are areas you can do it.

As for a branch Line to Sq One, you use a tram-train that connect to the Hurontario Line that only needs a short section area to do it and it is there now.

At some point, Mississauga Rd has to be grade separated as well 2 others and the closure of 2. 9th line is already on Mississauga books to be grade separated and this leave Halton to grade a number of crossing. To do all of this is close to $3B compare to the $2.1B plan in 2014 that only had one fly under, 4 tracks and no grade separation.

CN Halton sub can support 4 tracks compare to the current 1-3 tracks in place now, but getting CN to do the same thing as CP could be easier, but still costly to do. Then there is the double tracking the line to KW that has its own issues with many grade crossing.

Once there are battery power trains, then the electrifying the line is a non existing issue. Still need areas to charge the battery power trains along the route as backup service.

As I stated in the past, there is no missing link that others call it it, but and other than a new route that has to be paid 100% by the province since it their call to do it. It will be build to RR standards, but provision must be made to allow HSR type service on it for future needs. Can see the Halton Sub to Burlington and to the east of Toronto having RER type service on it.

There is no needs for stations at Sherbourne and only haft the stations for Cherry St as well at Spadina.

You do not need battery trains to electrify areas in conflict with freight, as people have said inumerable times freight can run under wire, and in this case it would be a very short segment. If Milton is to get frequent service flyovers would probably be needed anyways.

The authors of the report put forth a very good case for more stations, I am not sure what you mean "only half the stations"
 
I wonder if TRBOT would entertain the idea of presenting the findings/recommendations of the report in video format (maybe a 20 minute summary version, and 60 minute more in-depth presentation). I think it would help reach a broader audience and be more impactful. Kind of frustrating that there are people outside the UT echo chamber in a mainstream organization that seem to 'get it' but they are likely to be ignored by the powers-that-be. Both their fare integration and this regional rail report seem very well considered.
 
FWIW, my take, in brief:

The BOT report, has ambition, and some good ideas in it.

Steve is not wrong that it doesn't cover everything, address every issue, nor provide detailed costing etc.

I'm not sure Steve's critique is completely fair. No report or idea set encompasses everything.

Moreover, the report's principle author, Jonathan English, has written this as one of a series of reports, which needs to be taken in the context both of those that came before it, and those that will follow.

Steve isn't wrong to suggest there's an element of fantasy here, as there is in most grand plans. Its a scheme to aspire to, not one in which every detail is black-letter law and spelled out in schematic detail.

I don't think its a reasonable critique to say every 'i' isn't dotted and 't' crossed; when this is not an E.A., nor an operating plan for a service.

Its an idea of what a service could be; and is used both to suggest some worthwhile ambitions and to hold up to scrutiny existing under-achievement and questionable planning.

There are some details in the proposal I question; some omissions I'd love to see addressed; and some high-level costs and savings that could have been included to advance discussion.

But I think Steve's take was just too harsh.

Steve didn't like the report because there are no streetcars or in-median LRTs in it.
 
Steve didn't like the report because there are no streetcars or in-median LRTs in it.
My takeaways were that he found it unrealistic because it downplayed the importance of local transit, did not consider operational funding or the impact/cost of fare integration, was too unrealistic, and did not fully consider operational details.

I think there were better ways to get that point across: he could be less wordy and have dropped the snark.

I also happen to disagree with some of his takes on the report.
 

Back
Top