[KevinT]

I hadn't gone as far as actually checking the schedules to see if it would work. I think if we got on the 6:08, we'd be good. But my wife will never agree to it.

I once got my wife to take the SkyTrain with me from the Vancouver airport to our hotel. It was an hour+ ride with a transfer to a different train, and she _hated_ me for it...

 

[bearcat]

A couple of questions for you Dan. I'm not taking an advocacy position here, I'm just curious.

There appears to be surplus space in the current aerial photos on the west side of Bloor GO/Stn.

Pink is the property line, but I stopped drawing the distance marker where the visual indication of a building exists.

View attachment 641081

That distance is 7.5M from the edge of the existing track to the apparent building wall.

That should allow for one additional track and a somewhat shallow platform by my math.

Thoughts?

****

Second question, since I'm here picking your brain, which I apologize for doing a great deal today.......

What's the full build-out plan for tracks north/west of Bloor Station? I see 5 laid today:

View attachment 641082

The measurement from noise barrier to noise barrier is ~38M which, my math suggests would support up to 9 tracks.......certainly 8, comfortably, leaving room for gantry posts.

***

Finally, looking at the east side of the station (rail path), the City's ROW is ~9M or greater beside the station at all times, with a 2M buffer on the Mx side.

The minimum width of the path itself is for design purposes is 4M, assuming we allowed 5M for a space for lighting poles etc, and a 1M buffer beside the station, that provides 5 surplus M available with floating the path in the sky.

This section (below) is 12M, plus the buffer on the Mx side, but other parts are narrower:

View attachment 641085

If one had 5 surplus M, that would seem to be enough for an additional track w/o moving the platforms?

If this were the case, one needn't shift all the platforms over, one could shift some of the trains over, with Milton using the westernmost tracks, as it does today.

****

As noted, I'm not arguing for any of the above, of that its a good investment; merely that there seems to be space to do something there. But I appreciate there may be reasons that what 'seems' to be there is not actually available for said purpose.

I am confused about what you mean by 2 m buffer on the Mx side on the east side? Isn't there a track there now (or just being installed)?

 

[Northern Light]

I am confused about what you mean by 2 m buffer on the Mx side on the east side? Isn't there a track there now (or just being installed)?

Valid point, I just measured the property lines on the City's aerial photos. The 'buffer' was the space btw the Mx property line as shown and the City's property.

Its certainly possible that the photo is misleading, its definitely outdated, and maybe a track is going there. I'll wait to see what Dan has to say on all this.

One of the other future considerations here is that I expect UPxpress will be removed, once K-W bound GO trains run into Pearson. Possible they could maintain a separate service, but I don't see why.

OF course, that's many, many years away from happening.

 

[drum118]

I am confused about what you mean by 2 m buffer on the Mx side on the east side? Isn't there a track there now (or just being installed)?

No the track is not there and you can see the bridge for it over Bloor in my photos above.

It was removed when work started on grade separation and the Bloor Station around 2014 if you look south from Wallace overpass. Looking north, you will see where the in service track connects to that missing track .

December 18, 2014

May 19, 2018

January 16, 2024

 

[bearcat]

No the track is not there and you can see the bridge for it over Bloor in my photos above.

It was removed when work started on grade separation and the Bloor Station around 2014 if you look south from Wallace overpass. Looking north, you will see where the in service track connects to that missing track .

December 18, 2014

May 19, 2018

January 16, 2024

I am talking about the track on the east side, the new track that I think is currently going in here along the Railpath. I was clarifying with @Northern Light where he meant the 2 m buffer is that he mentioned next to the City's ROW (on which the Railpath is) in relation to this new track.

My understanding this is what's it's meant to look like when done:

 

[bearcat]

Valid point, I just measured the property lines on the City's aerial photos. The 'buffer' was the space btw the Mx property line as shown and the City's property.

Its certainly possible that the photo is misleading, its definitely outdated, and maybe a track is going there. I'll wait to see what Dan has to say on all this.

One of the other future considerations here is that I expect UPxpress will be removed, once K-W bound GO trains run into Pearson. Possible they could maintain a separate service, but I don't see why.

OF course, that's many, many years away from happening.

Yes, let's wait an see what Dan says. I personally think even if UP express is removed they might want to keep 4 tracks dedicated for Kitchenener Line for express and local perhaps.

 

[drum118]

I am talking about the track on the east side, the new track that I think is currently going in here along the Railpath. I was clarifying with @Northern Light where he meant the 2 m buffer is that he mentioned next to the City's ROW (on which the Railpath is) in relation to this new track.

View attachment 641093


My understanding this is what's it's meant to look like when done:

View attachment 641095

There is no room for a 2m buffer zone between the track and the pathway. To do so would remove the pathway all together with parts of the pathway already been reduced for that track..

The rendering are correct as to what will exist late this year when the track is install along with the sound barrier missing sections.

There is no room for a 2m buffer on the west side without expropriating land to do so.

 

[Northern Light]

Yes, let's wait an see what Dan says. I personally think even if UP express is removed they might want to keep 4 tracks dedicated for Kitchenener Line for express and local perhaps.

I think your rendering is clear enough that a track goes on the east side......... but I do want to show you what I was looking at, misleading as it is, obviously.

Pink Lines are property lines.

Its important to note here that at various points along the station, the measure from various property lines to other points such as the rail path or adjacent buildings varies. I can't illustrate them all, but I'll show a couple again, just so you can see what I was seeing:

West side:

That blue line above is 7.8M in length

East Side: (What I was calling 'the buffer' that will clearly have a track):

That blue line is 2.5M

Further East:

That blue line suggests the City owns 9.1M btw those 2 points. A typical multi-use path requires 4M (add 1M for light posts and such)

 

[drum118]

Yes, let's wait an see what Dan says. I personally think even if UP express is removed they might want to keep 4 tracks dedicated for Kitchenener Line for express and local perhaps.

The plan all along was to have 4 tracks for the KW line to Bramalea in this area with the underpass already built for them. Track 1 will connecting to CN Line going east with track 2-4 going into the Bramalea station.

Be very surprise if UP use the new track as the current setup keeps them on their own track north of the Weston Station. It may get use if ML needs to do trackwork on track 3/4 in the future.

GO does use UPX line (track 3) in between UP trains as well VIA.

 

[bearcat]

I think your rendering is clear enough that a track goes on the east side......... but I do want to show you what I was looking at, misleading as it is, obviously.

View attachment 641097

Pink Lines are property lines.

Its important to note here that at various points along the station, the measure from various property lines to other points such as the rail path or adjacent buildings varies. I can't illustrate them all, but I'll show a couple again, just so you can see what I was seeing:

West side:

View attachment 641099

That blue line above is 7.8M in length

East Side: (What I was calling 'the buffer' that will clearly have a track):

View attachment 641101

That blue line is 2.5M

Further East:

View attachment 641102

That blue line suggests the City owns 9.1M btw those 2 points. A typical multi-use path requires 4M (add 1M for light posts and such)

Thanks for explaining.

So the goal here is 6 tracks with platforms access for each I think.

Right, so there is 4.1 meters "excess" on the east side? Is that enough to add one more track and a side platform? I don't see the rationale of adding a platformless track here.

In the 7.8 m on the west side, I can't comment whether you can add a track and a platform, maybe? @drum118 doesn't think so. It would need to be an island platform so there are no platformless tracks. I think it would be too narrow.

I think without moving the current platforms and tracks it will not work to fit 6 tracks all with platform access unless the Railpath is really narrowed or as someone suggested runs elevated over the station.

 

[Sauga89]

So, here are the thoughts/options buzzing around my head, if it's okay to add them to @Northern Light's questions.

Option 1, add the second Milton track (red line) as I think Metrolinx already plans, and leave the rail path and existing platforms untouched. If the 7.5 metres Northern Light identified north of Bloor St, aren't enough for a track and platform, could you build a short (EDIT: side) platform south of Bloor? There is a 130 metre stretch with no buildings on the south side of the track. That would only give you one Milton platform, but even if it was just an eastbound stop, it would still save 13 minutes in the AM peak. Also, maybe trains could use different tracks for AM and PM? That would make it a peak direction stop, even if the rest of the Milton Line became 2WAD.

The Loblaws south of Bloor is a few metres farther from the tracks than the building north of Bloor (14 metres vs 7.5 metres), so maybe the platform could even be full length?

Option 2, build a full-length Milton side platform north of Bloor in the space allocated for a track on the south side of the existing tracks. I think Bloor GO was initially designed to be 2 island platforms (and Wikipedia agrees). While it would be great if Milton could shift over Kitchener/UP service, so that Milton had 2 tracks and two platforms, and Kitchener/UP had 3 of each, I'm guessing that the powers that be have decided Kitchener/UP/HSR needs 4 tracks and platforms. Or maybe the rail path plan spoiled the second island platform? But I'm guessing even without the rail path there might not be room for two more tracks and a side platform on the north side of the tracks north of Bloor. I was thinking you could preserve the rail path by building a pedestrian bridge above and along the tracks/platforms. That I thought could create space for two tracks. You could then I thought put in a platform south of Bloor, similar to option 1, but north of the tracks.

I labelled the new platforms blue. The new platform on the north side of the tracks might only be (EDIT: 120 metres long), but I thought it could be full length if the building circled in green were expropriated and demolished. Alternatively, call it 2b, you could demolish the building at 21 Randolph north of Bloor and build a platform there, but 21 Randolph is a bigger building than the one south of Bloor.

Either 2a or 2b would be 6 tracks and 6 platforms, while #1 would be 5 platforms and 6 tracks. I think #1 would be pretty cheap and reasonable, while 2a and 2b would be more expensive, but perhaps justifiable. So what am I missing @smallspy ?

 

[bearcat]

So, here are the thoughts/options buzzing around my head, if it's okay to add them to @Northern Light's questions.

Option 1, add the second Milton track (red line) as I think Metrolinx already plans, and leave the rail path and existing platforms untouched. If the 7.5 metres Northern Light identified north of Bloor St, aren't enough for a track and platform, could you build a short platform south of Bloor? There is a 130 metre stretch with no buildings on the south side of the track. That would only give you one Milton platform, but even if it was just an eastbound stop, it would still save 13 minutes in the AM peak. Also, maybe trains could use different tracks for AM and PM? That would make it a peak direction stop, even if the rest of the Milton Line became 2WAD.

View attachment 641087
The Loblaws south of Bloor is a few metres farther from the tracks than the building north of Bloor (14 metres vs 7.5 metres), so maybe the platform could even be full length?

Option 2, build a full-length Milton side platform north of Bloor in the space allocated for a track on the south side of the existing tracks. I think Bloor GO was initially designed to be 2 island platforms (and Wikipedia agrees). While it would be great if Milton could shift over Kitchener/UP service, so that Milton had 2 tracks and two platforms, and Kitchener/UP had 3 of each, I'm guessing that the powers that be have decided Kitchener/UP/HSR needs 4 tracks and platforms. Or maybe the rail path plan spoiled the second island platform? But I'm guessing even without the rail path there might not be room for two more tracks and a side platform on the north side of the tracks north of Bloor. I was thinking you could preserve the rail path by building a pedestrian bridge above and along the tracks/platforms. That I thought could create space for two tracks. You could then I thought put in a platform south of Bloor, similar to option 1, but north of the tracks.

View attachment 641103
I labelled the new platforms blue. The new platform on the north side of the tracks might only 130 long, but I thought it could be full length if the building circled in green were expropriated and demolished. Alternatively, call it 2b, you could demolish the building at 21 Randolph north of Bloor and build a platform there, but 21 Randolph is a bigger building than the one south of Bloor.
View attachment 641105

Either 2a or 2b would be 6 tracks and 6 platforms, while #1 would be 5 platforms and 6 tracks. I think #1 would be pretty cheap and reasonable, while 2a and 2b would be more expensive, but perhaps justifiable. So what am I missing @smallspy ?

The plan is for two island platforms as mentioned a few posts above, the easternmost Kitchener GO track is being built now. Only way 2 a or b works is if the Railpath becomes super narrow or is elevated above the tracks which would be pretty expensive. Yes it probably feasible, but is it worth it?

 

[crs1026]

Here's a shot of the clearance at Bloor Street. If one were to move the west track of the Milton line to the very extreme - which would imply building abutments and moving the bridge over - this shot shows the amount of room that one has to play with. I can imagine an island platform of that width fitting.... but the structures to bring the staircases and elevator from the underground level to that platform - which would have to fit between the clearance plate for the two tracks with some spacing from the track - would be very, very narrow.
Personally, my eye says it's not wide enough.

- Paul

 

[Sauga89]

Here's a shot of the clearance at Bloor Street. If one were to move the west track of the Milton line to the very extreme - which would imply building abutments and moving the bridge over - this shot shows the amount of room that one has to play with. I can imagine an island platform of that width fitting.... but the structures to bring the staircases and elevator from the underground level to that platform - which would have to fit between the clearance plate for the two tracks with some spacing from the track - would be very, very narrow.
Personally, my eye says it's not wide enough.

- Paul

View attachment 641121

Now I'm really confused. Isn't there already an empty spot for a track on that bridge? I thought that was reserved for a second Milton track? Why would you really need to expand the bridge? I was asking why you couldn't put a side platform south of Bloor on the southwest side of the corridor, not an island platform. I was thinking a new side platform could access the North side of Bloor, but if there isn't space for that, it isn't really needed.

This is what I mean for #1, with the blue line being a short side platform, and the red being the new track. I used a google distance line for the side platform the first time.

The plan is for two island platforms as mentioned a few posts above, the easternmost Kutcher GO track is being built now. Only way 2 a or b works is if the Railpath becomes super narrow or is elevated above the tracks which would be pretty expensive. Yes it probably feasible, but is it worth it?

I've done the Cooksville GO to Yonge-Bloor commute in the past. I don't know if 2a or 2b would be worth it, but I'd love to see Metrolinx at least study it and tell me the price tag. It would be a lot more feasible if you could just cut out that rail path entirely, but I know that would be tough politically. Even just #1 would be great.

 

[drum118]

Thanks for explaining.

So the goal here is 6 tracks with platforms access for each I think.

Right, so there is 4.1 meters "excess" on the east side? Is that enough to add one more track and a side platform? I don't see the rationale of adding a platformless track here.

In the 7.8 m on the west side, I can't comment whether you can add a track and a platform, maybe? @drum118 doesn't think so. It would need to be an island platform so there are no platformless tracks. I think it would be too narrow.

I think without moving the current platforms and tracks it will not work to fit 6 tracks all with platform access unless the Railpath is really narrowed or as someone suggested runs elevated over the station.

Unless plans have change from the day one plans, there is to be 6 tracks and no platform(s) for the Milton line.

The goal then was use Kipling as the connection with the subway.

One could go in there that It would be a narrow platform for the west side as well a safety issue. Then you will have an operation issue where both direction trains will be using that only platform as well extra switches to do so.

If and went the Crosstown Line bare fruit, there will be no station to connect to the KW line nor the UPX to the airport just like the Milton Line at Bloor.