VIA Rail

[Urban Sky]

Do they have too? Could they just trench and double/triple track the bit through town or is it just easier (and cheaper) to bypass? Seems to me that building a suburban station is poor for transit integration.

If you want to build anything beyond the absolutely minimum standard, you should directly build HSR ready (i.e. design speed 150+ mph) and that would be an entirely electrified and grade-separated double-tracked corridor, which is about the last thing I would want to see build through my city if I lived in Peterborough. Another reason to build a downtown rather than greenfield station is that it would facilitate rather than impede the creation of a Commuter Rail service in the distant future...

 

[roger1818]

Somehow even lower than what I expected! Ha ha. Sad.

@Urban Sky was on point when he predicted no new services.

I'm not really surprised. There will likely be an election soon and after having just announced commitment to HFR, they needed to tell south-western Ontario that they hadn't forgotten about them.

 

[Allandale25]

If you want to build anything beyond the absolutely minimum standard, you should directly build HSR ready (i.e. design speed 150+ mph) and that would be an entirely electrified and grade-separated double-tracked corridor, which is about the last thing I would want to see build if Peterborough was my home city. Another reason to build a downtown rather than greenfield station is that it would facilitate rather than impede the creation of a Commuter Rail service in the distant future...

Maybe the Peterborough bypass could parallel Hwy 115 from about County Road No. 11 Airport Road in the west to Highway 7 in the east.

 

[Northern Light]

I'm not really surprised. There will likely be an election soon and after having just announced commitment to HFR, they needed to tell south-eastern Ontario that they hadn't forgotten about them.

South-western, but sure...........

Except.....I think saying 'we'll think, about talking about opportunities' doesn't actually get you any points with the public. They have such a wide range of small things they could have announced (up to very large ones) which would have said the same thing, but with a modicum of credibility.

 

[kEiThZ]

If you want to build anything beyond the absolutely minimum standard, you should directly build HSR ready (i.e. design speed 150+ mph) and that would be an entirely electrified and grade-separated double-tracked corridor, which is about the last thing I would want to see build if Peterborough was my home city. Another reason to build a downtown rather than greenfield station is that it would facilitate rather than impede the creation of a Commuter Rail service in the distant future...

I may have understood you. I thought you were suggesting building a station outside the city to facilitate a bypass? To me a downtown station really should be the goal, unless the costs and geometry just blow it. I am curious to see if that rail corridor through Peterborough is actually suitable for further development.

 

[Northern Light]

I still predicted that the study area scope for HFR would be expanded to include SWO, which means I'm still underwhelmed by this commitment to things which sound more like a description of what you would expect a Transport Minister to do unprompted...

Peterborough will have to get a bypass anyways once services go beyond hourly service. The question now is just whether any trains will ever stop in downtown again or if there will be just a greenfield HSR station which could just as well be called after the next farm...

If you want to build anything beyond the absolutely minimum standard, you should directly build HSR ready (i.e. design speed 150+ mph) and that would be an entirely electrified and grade-separated double-tracked corridor, which is about the last thing I would want to see build if Peterborough was my home city. Another reason to build a downtown rather than greenfield station is that it would facilitate rather than impede the creation of a Commuter Rail service in the distant future...

With the obvious caveats that I haven't looked at the details and that I defer to your greater knowledge...........
I drew a line off the existing corridor south-east of PTBO and drew a roughly straight-line to rejoin the corridor to the east of PTBO where the rail corridor closes in on highway 7 again.
I was really quite surprised to find that the distances were almost identical in the two routes.

****

Obviously, the advantages to greenfield are there in terms of easier potential for grade-separations and curve elimination or mitigation, allowing for much higher line speeds.

A couple of further observations:

1) Downtown Ptbo has an inordinate amount of open land, which in theory would provide some 'options' for rail upgrades, albeit not to HSR standards.

2) However, Downtown Ptbo is also a giant floodplain, which makes grade-separations where either road or rail go below grade a near impossibility.
There's also a creek piped under much of the area as well.

3) The above, almost (not really) makes me want to muse about going elevated through the downtown.

4) Peterborough has a remarkable amount of dis-used railway ROW, some of it currently purposed as trail.

I make note of this, because one of those routes runs almost perfectly parallel to the existing live track into downtown, it would, in theory, have potential to function as a passing track, give or take any blowback from taking away the trail.

The red line punctuated by pins shows the alternate ROW, which I have then connected to the existing at Brown Line.

I selected that for a potential connection to avoid complex crossings of wetlands, or conflicts w/roads that have supplanted the ROW beyond that point.

 

[crs1026]

Do folks in Peterborough understand how the proposed service will impact their city?

If I am understanding it, the new VIA service will run on the tracks that go through a very idyllic residential neighbour on the east side of the river (East City), including a very awkward diagonal currently at-grade rail/road crossing on Maria Street. There are many at-grade crossings along the route and a pivot bridge over the Trent canal as well. This seems like it will have a huge impact on the city but I haven't read anything about how they plan to deal with all of this nor any reaction from local residents.

I don't think it's as bad as all that.... but it does suggest either a slower speed limit through town, and/or possibly some long term planning for grade separation. Two short trains per hour will not lead to congestion at level crossings, although over the long term grade separation is a goal. (I wonder if Peterboro has done the net-net on gaining train service vs funding those grade separations.....)

The Peterborough Mayor was quoted as saying the station needed to be downtown, but maybe a bit west of the old depot, to provide more room for parking. None of the adjoining property has anything valuable on it (except maybe the bus garage) so land acquisition ought to be doable and reasonably affordable.

A downtown location would make most sense for what the HFR service will be... ie an intercity station linking Peterborough to Toronto and Ottawa. Downtown is as close as one could get to Trent U, and the development impact on the downtown would be very favourable. The down side is that all travellers would have to arrive and depart downtown, which attracts traffic into the downtown area.

Others assume that Peterborough will become the end point of a GO Train... and there will be a traditional peak service taking people to work in Durham or Toronto and returning at night. If that were going to be the case, I might argue for moving the station to the southwest end, close to Fleming College. Or even at the Landsowne Ave crossing. Either Airport Road or Lansdowne would enable good last-mile connectivity, albeit at the expense of Trent U. It would keep the commuter trips out of the downtown.

Personally, I hope GO stays away... no reason why VIA can't have a trainset or two lay over in Peterboro if that traffic is actually marketable. HFR is not GO, nor is it the Shining Waters railway....someone needs to ensure that expectations are recalibrated.

I don't see much advantage in switching to the CN route. It crosses almost as many streets. The existing line has the advantage of being accepted as a rail line - why rock the boat?.

- Paul

 

[roger1818]

I don't think it's as bad as all that.... but it does suggest either a slower speed limit through town, and/or possibly some long term planning for grade separation. Two short trains per hour will not lead to congestion at level crossings, although over the long term grade separation is a goal. (I wonder if Peterboro has done the net-net on gaining train service vs funding those grade separations.....)

I suspect VIA would need to respect Transport Canada's new Grade separation assessment guidelines (created in response to the 2015 TSB Recommendation R15-04, made after the fatal collision between an OC Transpo bus and a VIA Rail passenger train). The Criteria that I suspect will be most relevant for HFR is the Cross Product (the product of the average number of trains per day and the Annual average daily traffic (AADT)) exceeding 1 million. If we assume that there will be an average of 30 trains a day (15 each way), and the AADT at the crossing exceeds 33 thousand, grade separation would be recommended.

 

[robmausser]

LOL........this is a Del Duca presser!

From the presser:

efforts will also be undertaken to determine how passenger rail services might be improved to better service markets west of Toronto, including London and Windsor.

And:

View attachment 336477

*****

So, let's follow along everyone: A presser was held to announce efforts to explore and talk.

That's it.

No new infra investments, no new services, not so much as an EA or a timeline.....

I'm really hopeful that eventually VIA will create an HFR southwest by buying the GEXR sub from CN to London and upgrading the rail to Class 7 200kmh. They will have to contend with Metrolinx and CN on the portion from Union to Kitchener but I dont see that as much of a problem.

As far as Windsor goes, theres lots of farm fields, so building a rail line adjacent to the existing CN/CP mainlines would probably be quite easy. VIA fortunately already owns the track near Windsor so getting into Windsor where land acquisition would become expensive and difficult is not a problem.

 

[DirectionNorth]

I'm really hopeful that eventually VIA will create an HFR southwest by buying the GEXR sub from CN to London and upgrading the rail to Class 7 200kmh. They will have to contend with Metrolinx and CN on the portion from Union to Kitchener but I dont see that as much of a problem.

View attachment 336609

As far as Windsor goes, theres lots of farm fields, so building a rail line adjacent to the existing CN/CP mainlines would probably be quite easy. VIA fortunately already owns the track near Windsor so getting into Windsor where land acquisition would become expensive and difficult is not a problem.

View attachment 336608

For the K-L line, you'd need to straighten those curves west of Kitchener, and bypasses of Baden, St. Mary's, New Hamburg, and Stratford. You'd be better off building a new alignment there (in my uneducated opinion. Does anyone else have more information than me?)

Given that CN was willing to sell that section of the Chatham Sub, I think there's a decent chance of just persuading them to sell the rest of the sub to Komoka, though you'd probably need bypasses for a lot of towns. Now you'd need to consider speed vs cost.

 

[roger1818]

As far as Windsor goes, theres lots of farm fields, so building a rail line adjacent to the existing CN/CP mainlines would probably be quite easy. VIA fortunately already owns the track near Windsor so getting into Windsor where land acquisition would become expensive and difficult is not a problem.

View attachment 336608

I really don't think it would be difficult for VIA to buy the remainder of the Chatham Sub from CN (if they had the funding). The difficult would be obtaining dedicated tracks through London to connect the Guelph Sub to the Chatham Sub as the Dundas and Strathroy subs are part of CN's mainline.

 

[Urban Sky]

I really don't think it would be difficult for VIA to buy the remainder of the Chatham Sub from CN (if they had the funding). The difficult would be obtaining dedicated tracks through London to connect the Guelph Sub to the Chatham Sub as the Dundas and Strathroy subs are part of CN's mainline.

I actually struggle to see CN selling the Eastern part of the Chatham Sub, as I believe freight traffic to be substantially higher than it was west of Chatham/Bloomfield or along the Alexandria Subdivision at any point after CN sold these segments...

 

[West End Boy]

I may have understood you. I thought you were suggesting building a station outside the city to facilitate a bypass? To me a downtown station really should be the goal, unless the costs and geometry just blow it. I am curious to see if that rail corridor through Peterborough is actually suitable for further development.

Interesting to hear everyone's thoughts. I can see the merit of building a bypass, though that would still be a big impact on land ownership, routing, etc, and the removal of the downtown station would be very unfortunate. But a serious rail corridor right through the established city also seems like a huge undertaking given the current state of the corridor.

I suspect that if/as the project progresses, there will be a lot of strong reactions from Pboro residents. I don't live there currently though am eyeing it for the future.

 

[crs1026]

For the K-L line, you'd need to straighten those curves west of Kitchener, and bypasses of Baden, St. Mary's, New Hamburg, and Stratford. You'd be better off building a new alignment there (in my uneducated opinion. Does anyone else have more information than me?)

Historically there was no slow order on any of the curves west of Kitchener - they were always good for 70 mph..... until CN and GEXR stopped maintaining the track, anyways. Worst case if VIA fixed up the line would be a short 70 mph slow order - not a big penalty timewise. I bet with banking that could be improved upon.

Collenette suggested a pretty nifty route to the south of the CN line in his HSR study.... and that got a pretty hefty backlash from local residents. I would say stick with the CN routing. Clearly Baden and maybe New Hamburg might justify a grade separation. A bypass around New Hamburg would require a new bridge over the river.... no doubt cheaper to stick with the one that's there.

- Paul

 

[Northern Light]

Historically there was no slow order on any of the curves west of Kitchener - they were always good for 70 mph..... until CN and GEXR stopped maintaining the track, anyways. Worst case if VIA fixed up the line would be a short 70 mph slow order - not a big penalty timewise. I bet with banking that could be improved upon.

Collenette suggested a pretty nifty route to the south of the CN line in his HSR study.... and that got a pretty hefty backlash from local residents. I would say stick with the CN routing. Clearly Baden and maybe New Hamburg might justify a grade separation. A bypass around New Hamburg would require a new bridge over the river.... no doubt cheaper to stick with the one that's there.

- Paul

I think there may be some value to protecting for a future by-pass of Stratford and St. Mary but not necessarily in implementing same in the near-term future.

I actually see Stratford as a marketable train trip from Toronto.

Though, the train station isn't ideally positioned relative to the theatres etc. There's not a lot to be done about that either. Though they really do need some public realm investment in the area of the station, the road connecting to Downtown; and throughout the latter. It doesn't really befit some very nice buildings, too much parking, too few trees.