Metroscapes
Active Member
This was a draft from quite a few months ago. The red is rail lines, the tan is the 413, based on the EA drawings.
|
|
|
- Thread starter dunkalunk
- Start date
This was a draft from quite a few months ago. The red is rail lines, the tan is the 413, based on the EA drawings.
crs1026
Superstar
Here are some details that might be needed to sell the 413 idea to CPKC.
- Where does the bypass cross the Halton Sub? Over? Under?
- How does the bypass cross the ML Heritage Yard?
- What gradients are proposed to climb from 200m elevation at Hornby to 270 m at Mississauga Rd, and from McLean Rd (240m) to CP Mactier Sub at Vaughan (200m)??
- How much curvature is required to dodge the higher elevations between Hornby and the CP Mactier Sub?
- What is the total mileage vs current?
- How many river/creek crossings are required and what's the total required meters of bridgework?
- How many grade separated crossings? How many level crossings?
If one is going to draw lines on a map, let's use a topographic map, and start assessing the challenges therein. It all looks good on a highway map, however.......Just because a highway is able to be built on that alignment, does not prove that it's a good routing for a railway line. Or even affordable.
- Paul
- Where does the bypass cross the Halton Sub? Over? Under?
- How does the bypass cross the ML Heritage Yard?
- What gradients are proposed to climb from 200m elevation at Hornby to 270 m at Mississauga Rd, and from McLean Rd (240m) to CP Mactier Sub at Vaughan (200m)??
- How much curvature is required to dodge the higher elevations between Hornby and the CP Mactier Sub?
- What is the total mileage vs current?
- How many river/creek crossings are required and what's the total required meters of bridgework?
- How many grade separated crossings? How many level crossings?
If one is going to draw lines on a map, let's use a topographic map, and start assessing the challenges therein. It all looks good on a highway map, however.......Just because a highway is able to be built on that alignment, does not prove that it's a good routing for a railway line. Or even affordable.
- Paul
Last edited:
drum118
Superstar
You beat me on a number of things you posted.
1: Drawing lines on maps is easy if you have no idea what has to happen or can it happen to run CPKC along that line.
2: Ford and others can say the line will be built, but have they asked CPKC if they are willing to use this new line that will as deal with extra travelling time along getting in/out of the Agincourt yard?
3: Ford has to pickup the full cost for any new CPKC line alone buying the land, rebuilding existing overpass/underpass and building it. Then there are grade separation that will be required where none exist today or will be needed,
4: How does CPKC come off the Galt Sub and get pass CN Halton Sub?
4: Its a known fact that CN does not want CPKC running on their tracks nor interfering with their yards. They also want a buffer zone between the 2 systems.
5: How does this bypass cross ML Weston Sub to run along the southside of CN Tracks? This also includes CN Loop track from the Halton Sub to ML Weston Sub.
6: Railways prefer to use 1% or less for grade, but have used up to 2% when they cannot get that 1% grade.
7: If one view that plan route as an aerial view, you will noticed a lot of issues meeting CN needs as well dealing with Hydro corridor. Every bridge over or under the widen rail corridor will have to be rebuilt to handle the new 4 track corridor along with a few new grade separation crossing.
8: how does CPKC get over CN in the east as well getting to CKCP Agincourt yard??
9: What do you think these new lines will cost to build it as well how long do you think it will take??
10: Do some real site visit where possible to see what the line may look like, starting from existing overhead overpasses or areas where there are underpasses as well grade crossing. I have done a lot of this over the years when I had time to do it and not a simple project.
It is far cheaper and faster to upgrade CPKC Galt Sub line at $2.5 Billion as phase 1 without doing some expropriation to electrify the line with some issues in the Streetsville area because of CPKC yard.
Phase 2 requires a lot of work along with a number of grade separations, new bridges with a higher cost doing it. To electrify the line will be a major issues for most of the line,
crs1026
Superstar
Those are all good points, totally agree. Anyone who thinks that a railway can be built easily in the center of a highway across variable terrain, while dodging a whole lot of existing development and town centres, through land which is already in the hands of developers looking for a profit margin, is not thinking critically about the real-world challenges and constraints.
In order to be convinced to cooperate, CPKC would have to see a plan whose route is
- shorter
- straighter
- flatter
- easier to maintain (ie fewer bridges, culverts, grade crossings, etc)
- less constrained operationally
than what they have now.
Anything else is not going to fly. (The original CN-only Halton bypass actually did achieve a lot of this, although CN was hardly enthusiastic even so)
Putting CP alongside CN across the top of the city is a recipe for a decade of CN-generated litigation.
To repeat myself, Dofo has likely revived the bypass in the desperate hope that it would be cheaper than the shared solution already on the books. I expect in the course of time, he will find out that it isn't. And maybe then, there will be a serious look at how to fund the shared solution.
- Paul
Last edited:
Metroscapes
Active Member
I feel like if I spent an evening behind my home desktop in GIS, I could give you some ballparks on some of these.
But as much as we like to yell at napkin plans, understanding that a railway ROW will have less tolerance for vertical grade change than a highway ROW, the horizontal curvature is likely sufficient, and the grading work for the highway+railway presents attractive marginal land and civil costs compared to two separate facilities, where the railway would need to eb shoehorned somewhere else. We should not discount it as much as other plans IMO.
lenaitch
Senior Member
Add: Sufficiently separated or buffered from existing residential or official plan settlement areas so that they don't spent the next x decades in noise complaint litigation.
crs1026
Superstar
The more I think of it, the more I wonder if the ship has actually already sailed for Highway 413 - I wonder if the design and land acquisition is already too far along. Will Dofo really be willing to stop and rework the 413 design?
Certainly there would be economies to a highway-rail corridor over driving an entire new rail corridor across the top of the city.. but the comparison for GO 2.0 is to the cost of widening the existing rail line, not necessarily finding a discrete new route.
The width needed for rail includes not only the width of the track, but sufficient provision for access roads, laydown areas, etc. I expect that CPKC would want lots of "elbow room" for work equipment. I haven't looked at the 413 land acquisition plans, but this remains to be confirmed.
When I looked at a top map, I especially noted how many creek branches there are along the 413 route. There may be failrly low marginal costs to making overpasses over the highway wider to fit in a rail line.... but anything the rail line crosses over will be a discrete structure, and hence a full new cost.
And as noted, the shorter/leveller/straighter comparison still may prevail.
- Paul
Two examples from New Mexico and Oklahoma
.
sixrings
Senior Member
One day this thing is billions of dollars and not worth the upgrade. The next day it’s just adding a few tracks through expropriation which won’t cost much. The next day it’s we don’t really know what’s possible or how much any of this is going to cost. Brings real confidence to any Milton rider that anything is actually going to be built yet alone a branch to MCC.
Meanwhile we need rail to collingwood and Peterborough and damn it London too. Nothings too far for decent rail at a decent price except for the Milton line.
Meanwhile we need rail to collingwood and Peterborough and damn it London too. Nothings too far for decent rail at a decent price except for the Milton line.
Bojaxs
Senior Member
Just so we're clear. The 413 proposal would have the tracks running parallel with the 413. Not down the center of it. If that changes anything...
Last edited:
Metroscapes
Active Member
Trying to tackle this best I can. Numbered them for ease.
1 - East of Heritage Road. Given the close proximity of the two creeks and groundwater issues the would likely stem from an underpass, I'd say it'd go over.
2 - It doesn't it's to the east.
3 and 4 - I have to come back to this, I haven't finished running contours for Etobicoke Creek watershed and areas west, plus I'd probably want to run a topo profile tool a few times and I've found it finicky.
5 - It's about 42km along the 407 / 413 corridor from Galt to MacTier. 413 would cross Galt at Mile 26.4, MacTier at Mile ~17.5 (West Toronto Jct is Mile 4.9). So that's about 20km / 12.4mi shorter for Galt-MacTier traffic. Can't say what it's be to get over to Agincourt or the Belleville sub without a theoretical route, 413 ends the 400.
6 - This is tough. The West Humber and Etobicoke Creek watersheds are headwater areas for the 413, so the crossings would be piddly, or (more likely) the province already is planning on some drainage works to modify this. I would say a dozen or less between MacTier and Brampton's north border. Besides that, the Credit River is the only other notable watercourse, but granted it is a huge 800+m valley there.
7 - 31, though 6 of them are at 3 intersections. 1 is a rail crossing. None would be at grade if you're building a highway me thinks.
Counterpoint to this is the 413 corridor has an average width of 330 metres, which is much greater than others. I'd imagine a chunk of this is elbow room for grading and drainage works, but nonetheless suggests there's way more room than necessary.
Attachments
crs1026
Superstar
Either is certainly possible to consider as a starting point. My gut says that a center median rail line would be cheaper and easier to design and build, but possibly not to operate. I don't have data to support that.
I can't help but trigger to @Metroscapes observation that the 413 corridor is uncommonly wide - rubs a bit of salt in the wound - ie this highway will swallow a ridiculous amount of land that is better left as it is. But that may be water under the bridge, if today's election goes as the pollsters claim, 413 is a done deal. Using some of that land for a rail line does salvage something good out of the plan.
- Paul
Last edited:
Allandale25
Senior Member
The 413 freight bypass?
I posted it on page 88
407 Rail Freight Bypass/The Missing Link
The other biggie is that the bypass gets us to a place where something short of federal intervention could put electrification of Milton and beyond Bramalea on the table. Getting CN freight off the Kitchener line does nothing to help Milton. But technically speaking if CP trains were allowed to...urbantoronto.ca
Basically;
- "The Missing Link" for CN in order to open up the Kitchener line
- 413 bypass for CPKC in order to open up the Milton line.
Here's the issue with allowing both CN and CPKC to share the missing link. CN will be asked to allow CPKC trains to run right through the middle of their intermodal operation.
The yellow line represents "The Missing Link". CPKC trains will run right in between CN's Brampton Yard and Malport Yard.
View attachment 633146
Overlooking the Malport Yard from the Airport Rd. bridge going over the CN mainline.
I wasn't suggesting the additional tracks for CPKC would literally need to go through BIT. They could stay on the south side of the York Sub including the south side of Malport. Lots of bridges would be needed for CPKC to access the MacTier Sub. Options in blue and yellow. Green = CN; Red = CPKC.
I wonder if this time we'll get actual track drawings as part of the work Metrolinx has been directed to do.
Bojaxs
Senior Member
There's no room to lay down track south of Malport. The Maksteel plant is located directly south of Malport. Whenever I'm working at Malport the Maksteel workers will come outside for their smoke break and watch us off-load and load up the trains.
Your photos shows a hypothetical junction beside Islington where the CP and CN mainlines meet. I'm sure a setup like that would work, but the problem area is the stretch of track between Torbram and Goreway Dr., which you're not addressing.
Also something to consider is that Goreway Dr. is currently being grade separated from the track via a bridge. The space underneath the bridge is only being constructed wide enough for CN tracks. In hindsight we probably should have constructed an underpass for Goreway instead of a bridge. It would have made it easer to build parallel running CP tracks.
Malton is finally getting its bridge to somewhere
Malton is finally getting its bridge to somewhere
thepointer.com
Last edited:
Allandale25
Senior Member
^ I'll address it by saying they'll have to make it work via what's proposed in the study. Since Halwest would need a rail-under-rail grade separation anyways, maybe they'd continue it through Malport via a trentch/cut and cover, and the trucking portion of Malport could be on top. Lots of maps were made and discussed here during the height of the bypass talk in from 2016 to 2019 when the Kitchener Line IBC came out.
Transportfan
Senior Member
Funny that the new overpass is being promoted as "helping the area [Malton] become less isolated from the rest of Mississauga" considering north of it is all Brampton.Malton is finally getting its bridge to somewhere
Malton is finally getting its bridge to somewhere