[Northern Light]

I would not broadly disagree with @crs1026 above........but I would add some observations.

A portion of the question is how much of the yard do you want to move, and why?

That is to say is conflict what CN might assert, noise at 3am in a residential area? That is not mitigatable with a noise wall?

Or is to narrow the distance between crossings for pedestrians/cyclists/vehicles/transit?

Or is to narrow the distance of crossing the corridor at an established crossing point?

Looking just past West Harbour GO to the old Liuna station you can see the extent of former trackage space (virtually everything parking and everything green between the roads)

So there is room to shift things...........but in so doing.....you would lose parking, greenspace, or both ...........is that a net benefit?

I honestly don't know, that requires a much deeper dive on my part. I'm simply illustrating the possible, without the requisite 'why'.........and what are you prepared
to pay as CRS notes, if no in cash, then in community -use land, be in park or parking.........and does the modest shift, at some cost, adequately serve any land-use/community gain vs
impacts on railway operations vs cost.

CRS noted further options, but I chose to stick within a few km to see what was available nearby. My instinct, not have modeled and costed it all out, is that some modest shifting my make sense. But it wouldn't necessarily fully please CN or the pro-development crowd.......Giving up ~45m of greenspace or most of it on the east side of the corridor for ~7 additional tracks..............vs what is a now a 19-track yard or thereabouts............is it win-win, or lose-lose......tough to tell.

 

[micheal_can]

The City of Hamilton is now deploying a Ministry Zoning Order to try to push through a stalled-out housing development a short distance from CN’s yard, which CN has been fighting over out of concerns that the yard will create conflict with the hundreds of new residents.

Hamilton pitches ‘last resort’ measure to break Jamesville impasse with CN Rail

CN Rail says it’s ‘disappointed’ with city’s request for minister’s zoning order

www.thespec.com

I’m curious, is there any way a bigger deal could be worked out that finds a new home for the yard? Folks dream up all kind of fantasy scenarios in the Alto thread about regional high(er) speed rail to Niagara or better rail connections to the USA - will all that traffic still be passing through a CN shunting yard in 100 years?

Anything is possible with enough money. The challenge is that if a yard is needed, no matter where it goes, it will cause issues as the city grows. What may work would be somewhere near Burlington St, but then you are removing heavy industrial land from the city. Really,if both yards were moved onto that track, it would allow that line to be at higher speeds for the passenger services that use it.

 

[crs1026]

Here's a bit more granular detail to ponder.

The CN yard consists of four long tracks for lifting outgoing cars and setting off incoming traffic. Those four tracks are all close to 4300 feet long. Length matters for these tracks because if tracks are shorter, trains will have to "double" ie make additional moves to set off or collect all that train lenght.

At the west (Bayview) end, there's about 2,500 feet of "headroom" from the yard switch to the interlocking at Hamilton Jct, and a further 2,500 feet from there to Bayview.

At the east (Grimsby) end, there's about 3,000 feet of "headroom" from the last yard switch to the Interlocking at Hamilton, where the N+NW spur branches off. And there's a further 1.500 feet to the first level crossing at Wellington.

The "headroom" is critical because trains lifting or setting off need to pull out that far to clear the switching leads before backing in, and because the tail end of trains will need someplace to sit while work is done further ahead in the train. As it happens, at Hamilton all of that headroom is grade separated so there is no impact on blocking crossings while trains switch or do lift/setoff work.

The Hamilton yard also has 11 classification tracks, with 6 being about 1300 feet long and 5 being 2400-2800 feet long. These are the tracks that account for most of the switching, although some may be used for long-term storage of cars that aren't immediately needed to meet demand.

To the east of Hamilton yard, it's hard to find room for that configuration of trackage.

Possibly Parkdale yard could be expanded (it has 3x 4,000-ish foot tracks and 11 classification tracks of 1,800 to 2,500 feet).... but.... to get the necessary headroom, one would have to grade separate four level crossings.... otherwise, switching would block these crossings for unacceptable periods of time. And most of the line in that "headroom" zone is bordered by single family homes.

Looking even further east, the grade crossing problem becomes even worse.... and there are residential areas that constrain the width available much more. The further east one goes, one reaches agricultural land - including many vineyards. And the further east one goes, the more of an operational problem one creates.

I discount shifting to the west, because Aldershot yard is already constrained, and going up the hill towards Dundas is not realistic. One would have to go beyond Copetown to find level enough land, and that area is again good farmland, and CN does not need transfer or switching trains clogging up that main line.

In a perfect world, we would relocate all major rail yards well away from urban areas. I can certainly appreciate the opportunity that Hamilton would enjoy if the area between Barton Street and the Bay could be developed further. (Toronto's Lambton and Agincourt Yards present a similar opportunity, as does both CN and CP yards in London). The challenge is simply the cost and the downstream impacts on communities where the yards end up. The downtown rail yards in Toronto were abandoned - more because they were not needed than as a relocation strategy - but the value and density of the redeveloped real estate is so much larger that it becomes a more affordable proposition. If the money were as easy to secure elsewhere, I'm sure we would do more of this.

- Paul

PS Re noise walls - I presume the intended development is more than three stories tall - anything above a couple stories will not be shielded by noise walls. I'm not sure that noise walls even work very well with the crash-bang-rev up-brake cycle of switching operations. It's a different sound profile than a passing train. And diesels will sit idling for long periods (at least until we have more practical battery switchers).

 

[Sauga89]

If the housing project is at 405 James St, that puts it closer to West Harbour GO than CN's yard. Even if you moved CN's yard out of Hamilton, wouldn't there still be some noise from GO? The last GO train reaches West Harbour at 2:10 a.m., and West Harbour GO is only 50 metres away, while the CN yard is about 350 metres away.

 

[ownthesky]

Here's a bit more granular detail to ponder.

The CN yard consists of four long tracks for lifting outgoing cars and setting off incoming traffic. Those four tracks are all close to 4300 feet long. Length matters for these tracks because if tracks are shorter, trains will have to "double" ie make additional moves to set off or collect all that train lenght.

At the west (Bayview) end, there's about 2,500 feet of "headroom" from the yard switch to the interlocking at Hamilton Jct, and a further 2,500 feet from there to Bayview.

At the east (Grimsby) end, there's about 3,000 feet of "headroom" from the last yard switch to the Interlocking at Hamilton, where the N+NW spur branches off. And there's a further 1.500 feet to the first level crossing at Wellington.

The "headroom" is critical because trains lifting or setting off need to pull out that far to clear the switching leads before backing in, and because the tail end of trains will need someplace to sit while work is done further ahead in the train. As it happens, at Hamilton all of that headroom is grade separated so there is no impact on blocking crossings while trains switch or do lift/setoff work.

The Hamilton yard also has 11 classification tracks, with 6 being about 1300 feet long and 5 being 2400-2800 feet long. These are the tracks that account for most of the switching, although some may be used for long-term storage of cars that aren't immediately needed to meet demand.

To the east of Hamilton yard, it's hard to find room for that configuration of trackage.

Possibly Parkdale yard could be expanded (it has 3x 4,000-ish foot tracks and 11 classification tracks of 1,800 to 2,500 feet).... but.... to get the necessary headroom, one would have to grade separate four level crossings.... otherwise, switching would block these crossings for unacceptable periods of time. And most of the line in that "headroom" zone is bordered by single family homes.

Looking even further east, the grade crossing problem becomes even worse.... and there are residential areas that constrain the width available much more. The further east one goes, one reaches agricultural land - including many vineyards. And the further east one goes, the more of an operational problem one creates.

I discount shifting to the west, because Aldershot yard is already constrained, and going up the hill towards Dundas is not realistic. One would have to go beyond Copetown to find level enough land, and that area is again good farmland, and CN does not need transfer or switching trains clogging up that main line.

In a perfect world, we would relocate all major rail yards well away from urban areas. I can certainly appreciate the opportunity that Hamilton would enjoy if the area between Barton Street and the Bay could be developed further. (Toronto's Lambton and Agincourt Yards present a similar opportunity, as does both CN and CP yards in London). The challenge is simply the cost and the downstream impacts on communities where the yards end up. The downtown rail yards in Toronto were abandoned - more because they were not needed than as a relocation strategy - but the value and density of the redeveloped real estate is so much larger that it becomes a more affordable proposition. If the money were as easy to secure elsewhere, I'm sure we would do more of this.

- Paul

PS Re noise walls - I presume the intended development is more than three stories tall - anything above a couple stories will not be shielded by noise walls. I'm not sure that noise walls even work very well with the crash-bang-rev up-brake cycle of switching operations. It's a different sound profile than a passing train. And diesels will sit idling for long periods (at least until we have more practical battery switchers).

Thanks for the thorough write-up Paul, that's very helpful to think about.

I suppose in a perfect world, Hamilton and the province would want to start thinking about grade separation along the mainline regardless of whatever CN's shunting operations look like in the decades to come. The road and rail crossings in the North end are all in a horrific state of repair!

 

[tsm1072]

Here's a bit more granular detail to ponder.

The CN yard consists of four long tracks for lifting outgoing cars and setting off incoming traffic. Those four tracks are all close to 4300 feet long. Length matters for these tracks because if tracks are shorter, trains will have to "double" ie make additional moves to set off or collect all that train lenght.

At the west (Bayview) end, there's about 2,500 feet of "headroom" from the yard switch to the interlocking at Hamilton Jct, and a further 2,500 feet from there to Bayview.

At the east (Grimsby) end, there's about 3,000 feet of "headroom" from the last yard switch to the Interlocking at Hamilton, where the N+NW spur branches off. And there's a further 1.500 feet to the first level crossing at Wellington.

The "headroom" is critical because trains lifting or setting off need to pull out that far to clear the switching leads before backing in, and because the tail end of trains will need someplace to sit while work is done further ahead in the train. As it happens, at Hamilton all of that headroom is grade separated so there is no impact on blocking crossings while trains switch or do lift/setoff work.

The Hamilton yard also has 11 classification tracks, with 6 being about 1300 feet long and 5 being 2400-2800 feet long. These are the tracks that account for most of the switching, although some may be used for long-term storage of cars that aren't immediately needed to meet demand.

To the east of Hamilton yard, it's hard to find room for that configuration of trackage.

Possibly Parkdale yard could be expanded (it has 3x 4,000-ish foot tracks and 11 classification tracks of 1,800 to 2,500 feet).... but.... to get the necessary headroom, one would have to grade separate four level crossings.... otherwise, switching would block these crossings for unacceptable periods of time. And most of the line in that "headroom" zone is bordered by single family homes.

Looking even further east, the grade crossing problem becomes even worse.... and there are residential areas that constrain the width available much more. The further east one goes, one reaches agricultural land - including many vineyards. And the further east one goes, the more of an operational problem one creates.

I discount shifting to the west, because Aldershot yard is already constrained, and going up the hill towards Dundas is not realistic. One would have to go beyond Copetown to find level enough land, and that area is again good farmland, and CN does not need transfer or switching trains clogging up that main line.

In a perfect world, we would relocate all major rail yards well away from urban areas. I can certainly appreciate the opportunity that Hamilton would enjoy if the area between Barton Street and the Bay could be developed further. (Toronto's Lambton and Agincourt Yards present a similar opportunity, as does both CN and CP yards in London). The challenge is simply the cost and the downstream impacts on communities where the yards end up. The downtown rail yards in Toronto were abandoned - more because they were not needed than as a relocation strategy - but the value and density of the redeveloped real estate is so much larger that it becomes a more affordable proposition. If the money were as easy to secure elsewhere, I'm sure we would do more of this.

- Paul

PS Re noise walls - I presume the intended development is more than three stories tall - anything above a couple stories will not be shielded by noise walls. I'm not sure that noise walls even work very well with the crash-bang-rev up-brake cycle of switching operations. It's a different sound profile than a passing train. And diesels will sit idling for long periods (at least until we have more practical battery switchers).

How important is it that the classification tracks are in parallel to the mainline and lifting tracks? Hypothetically, if they left the 4 long tracks in their current location, could the classification tracks be moved somewhere like the unused Stelco lands to create a dead end yard similar to the CPKC Aberdeen yard?

 

[crs1026]

How important is it that the classification tracks are in parallel to the mainline and lifting tracks? Hypothetically, if they left the 4 long tracks in their current location, could the classification tracks be moved somewhere like the unused Stelco lands to create a dead end yard similar to the CPKC Aberdeen yard?

That's possible, but one would have to work out the added time and cost of moves required to transfer between the two, and what would be needed to protect any "shoving" moves between the two locations. Having a crew member hang on to the rear end of a long movement for a long distance is not advisable.

If the housing project is at 405 James St, that puts it closer to West Harbour GO than CN's yard. Even if you moved CN's yard out of Hamilton, wouldn't there still be some noise from GO? The last GO train reaches West Harbour at 2:10 a.m., and West Harbour GO is only 50 metres away, while the CN yard is about 350 metres away.

Go trains that simply pass through a location, or even lay over for short periods, are much more innocuous sound wise than freight switching.

PS One further issue re all those cars in storage at Hamilton is - how many are loads that are awaiting delivery to industries in Hamilton. Google seems to show many to be tank cars. It's common for rail yards to serve as warehouses - industries may keep an inventory of loaded cars in a nearby yard, due to limited track space on their own property, and as a buffer for when the railway can't achieve just in time delivery. I wonder how many tank cars of noxious materials are being held in that yard as inventory. If I were thinking of moving in next door, I would want to know. But again, what is the impact of storing those cars somewhere else on the cost of shipment and switching and reliability of delivery ?

- Paul

 

[lenaitch]

In a perfect world, we would relocate all major rail yards well away from urban areas.

Or, put another way, keep urban development well away from rail yards.

 

[micheal_can]

PS One further issue re all those cars in storage at Hamilton is - how many are loads that are awaiting delivery to industries in Hamilton. Google seems to show many to be tank cars. It's common for rail yards to serve as warehouses - industries may keep an inventory of loaded cars in a nearby yard, due to limited track space on their own property, and as a buffer for when the railway can't achieve just in time delivery. I wonder how many tank cars of noxious materials are being held in that yard as inventory. If I were thinking of moving in next door, I would want to know. But again, what is the impact of storing those cars somewhere else on the cost of shipment and switching and reliability of delivery ?

- Paul

Generally,if there are goods in the cars, they are not stored in a main yard. They are there to be moved from the industry to the customer,or vice versa. If we are talking about creating a storage yard, Double track the whole network in SWO, and have a few areas out of the urban areas with sidings for storage. Using the example of the old Stelco lands, that could be the storage area for empties. Or, even the local businesses that will fill them become a new storage area. Empty cars are not a danger to the environment, as there is nothing in them.

What is really needed is a whole change of how business is done. That full car does not stop, except to switch onto the next train going the direction needed. A car should not sit in a yard. Rail freight has become horribly slow,and I do not mean the speed of the train, but the time it takes cargo to move from one place to the other. The challenge with that kind of change is it would require shareholders to lose their high profits to spend it on infrastructure. Moving the yard or sound deadening mitigation is much easier to see happening.

 

[Metroscapes]

In a perfect world, we would relocate all major rail yards well away from urban areas.

Or, put another way, keep urban development well away from rail yards.

It's the same problem of how historic villages grew around local mills or a lake waterfront, because that was the centre of industry. Fast-forward a couple decades and it is now a town/city centre that has grown around it, and now we realize that it's prone to flooding thanks to a better understand hydrology and hydraulics. This makes for a conflict between urban development and natural hazards, and often we compromise.

Same thing with the rail lines. They were arteries for goods and people, and points along the lines became centres of industry. Fast-forward a couple decades and it is now a town/city centre that has grown around it, and now we realize that the noise pollution should be a planning consideration thanks to a better science of sound modelling. This makes for a conflict between urban development and industrial activity, and sometimes we should compromise.

It's just the natural ebb and flow of growing cities. I say all this as someone that lived facing Davisville Yard (which was worst at 1-2 AM when the work trains blasted their air horns and squealed through the switches).

 

[Allandale25]

 

[micheal_can]

It's the same problem of how historic villages grew around local mills or a lake waterfront, because that was the centre of industry. Fast-forward a couple decades and it is now a town/city centre that has grown around it, and now we realize that it's prone to flooding thanks to a better understand hydrology and hydraulics. This makes for a conflict between urban development and natural hazards, and often we compromise.

Same thing with the rail lines. They were arteries for goods and people, and points along the lines became centres of industry. Fast-forward a couple decades and it is now a town/city centre that has grown around it, and now we realize that the noise pollution should be a planning consideration thanks to a better science of sound modelling. This makes for a conflict between urban development and industrial activity, and sometimes we should compromise.

It's just the natural ebb and flow of growing cities. I say all this as someone that lived facing Davisville Yard (which was worst at 1-2 AM when the work trains blasted their air horns and squealed through the switches).

Reminds me of a new neighbour t hat moved to the area, and right beside the CP mainline where there is a crossing. In our local Facebook group, they asked how they could have the trains not blow the whistle in the night. Everyone wants to just remove what they see as the nuisance.It is like when someone moves to the country and does not like being upwind of a farm... The rail yards in Hamilton built the city.

 

[lenaitch]

Reminds me of a new neighbour t hat moved to the area, and right beside the CP mainline where there is a crossing. In our local Facebook group, they asked how they could have the trains not blow the whistle in the night. Everyone wants to just remove what they see as the nuisance.It is like when someone moves to the country and does not like being upwind of a farm... The rail yards in Hamilton built the city.

My first house at my first posting was right across the street from the CP Mactier sub, including a signalized crossing and a switch for passing track. I think I heard it the first couple of night then never again for the next five years.

 

[Allandale25]

 

[dowlingm]

Couple of more pics of the manganese train shipment here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1577742085811949/permalink/3923775624541905/?