[dowlingm]

Surely capacity concerns on the Grimsby Sub can be addressed in some respects by increasing to Class 4 (60/80) where feasible, reinstating the double track section between Grimsby and Jordan, and figuring out how to reduce closely spaced grade crossings. Moving to public ownership doesn’t shut CN out of daytime operations entirely, this isn’t a full blown temporal separation like O Train or Waterloo LRT.

 

[Sunnyside]

Surely capacity concerns on the Grimsby Sub can be addressed in some respects by increasing to Class 4 (60/80) where feasible, reinstating the double track section between Grimsby and Jordan, and figuring out how to reduce closely spaced grade crossings. Moving to public ownership doesn’t shut CN out of daytime operations entirely, this isn’t a full blown temporal separation like O Train or Waterloo LRT.

Fair point. The way i was looking at it, if CN plans on using the line the same way it has been for another 50-100 years, then they may as well own it. But by that same token, you also know exactly what you’d need if you were to sell it, and divest yourself of all that extra work by running it. Future uncertainty may still tilt this equation one way or the other.

 

[crs1026]

A very simple solution to CN's needs is - coproduction. Neither CN nor CP need exclusive use of a full line on this route, as neither has enough traffic to get in each others' way, and that is unlikely to change much going forward. The two railways already cooperate to some degree between Robbins and Fort Erie and both railways visit each others' tracks for local business.

CN's "major" local yard on this route is Port Robinson, which has a good connection to the CP line. And most CN traffic is bound for Aldershot or beyond, which can follow a through route on CP via Welland and Kinnear..

I expect that CP would accept a trackage agreement that has CN paying a share of CP's fixed costs (a win for CP) at a price that is lower what CN is paying in fixed costs for the Grimsby Sub (a win for CN) (The Grimsby fixed costs can be passed to ML, and that's fine)

A very cheap solution would be to put CTC on the CP route, move all through CN traffic onto this line, and dedicate the Grimsby line to GO and local CN roadswitchers. That leaves the canal crossing as a problem, but it erases any angst about CN not sharing the tracks.

- Paul

 

[Sunnyside]

A very simple solution to CN's needs is - coproduction. Neither CN nor CP need exclusive use of a full line on this route, as neither has enough traffic to get in each others' way, and that is unlikely to change much going forward. The two railways already cooperate to some degree between Robbins and Fort Erie and both railways visit each others' tracks for local business.

CN's "major" local yard on this route is Port Robinson, which has a good connection to the CP line. And most CN traffic is bound for Aldershot or beyond, which can follow a through route on CP via Welland and Kinnear..

I expect that CP would accept a trackage agreement that has CN paying a share of CP's fixed costs (a win for CP) at a price that is lower what CN is paying in fixed costs for the Grimsby Sub (a win for CN) (The Grimsby fixed costs can be passed to ML, and that's fine)

A very cheap solution would be to put CTC on the CP route, move all through CN traffic onto this line, and dedicate the Grimsby line to GO and local CN roadswitchers. That leaves the canal crossing as a problem, but it erases any angst about CN not sharing the tracks.

- Paul

This is a great effort to open up the Grimsby Sub, but it only works if Port Robinson is the be-all end-all of better GO service to Hamilton or Niagara, which it’s not. I’m actually confused, as you've opened up a few new problems.

First, you don’t think CN will want direct, unimpeded access to Stuart and Parkdale Yards? I’d wager they do, even if they use CP’s line for the rest. And while Stuart may relocate one day, Parkdale will not. GO could allow them, but you’ll need a stronger way from the Grimsby Sub to the CP Hamilton sub regardless.

Second, this seems to imply routing CN through the Hunter Street Tunnel. Even if you could, why would we want to do this? We just changed a $1B expansion project from being to GO’s benefit, to CN’s. Because they won’t do it on their own dime.

Let’s say we can eat these issues. Now, the movements through Bayview have changed, but not been improved, for GO. CN will still be coming in off the Halton Sub, and without looking closely atm, that may not enable any more trains through than today.

So it’s great we’ve solved the Welland Canal, but now you’ve shifted every cost to Hamilton. Just a Ham-Niagara train won’t cut it either, given the scope of impact here…

 

[crs1026]

I’m not so sure it’s not a problem, but I have no data.

My impression is that the majority of the traffic that comes thru Port Rob goes all the way to Aldershot or beyond. Port Rob is mostly a staging yard needed to manage the uncertainties of the border crossing and the low priority that CN gets from CSX and NS in their Niagara terminals. That function, plus any local block swapping, could likely be done somewhere else - possibly reactivating a few yard tracks in Fort Erie or adding a couple at CPKC Welland.

You are correct that I may be forcing some backhaul from Aldershot to Parkdale and beyond etc. CN already does that anyways, and the Prt Rob trains don’t always work Hamilton but do work Aldershot. So I am speculating that this is not a big deal. Also CPKC already sends a yard job up the Stamford Sub from Brookfield. More work done at Welland is not a showstopper.

You are also correct that this puts CN thru the Hunter Street tunnel. That’s really not enough traffic to complicate things for GO, assuming peak service only. If GO intends to upgrade to 2WAD to Hamilton on this route, we are looking at a doubling and lowering project anyways.

I agree there are tradeoffs, in my view they are worth it.

- Paul

 

[dowlingm]

I thought the idea was to route onto the spur heading north from CPKC Kinnear Yard, not Hunter Street. Can’t imagine the local Hamiltonians being thrilled by that prospect though, or CN for that matter.

 

[tsm1072]

Anyway, this is starting to get quite off topic for the actual Alto corridor. But the absurdity presented is precisely why the answer for Hamilton will require a Hamilton-centric solution; you can’t afford to spend the money on anything like these, and *not* achieve multiple long-term goals for the area at once in return. Luckily, there’s enough places bottlenecked by the city’s barriers to vastly broaden the benefits. And, a Niagara-bound HSR requires far less.

Moving this to a slightly more relevant thread. For the next 50 years, there isn't really any demand for Hamilton HSR. If we look at the 4 primary directions people could travel to/from Hamilton:

Toronto (Lakeshore corridor): distance isn't far enough to require HSR, plus travel demand is spread between Burlington, Oakville, Mississauga, and Toronto. Probably frequent (2 tph) express service that can get people to Toronto in under an hour with some intermediate stops to allow transfers to local trains, and that will serve most of the demand. This is pretty much doable with current track and infrastructure.

St Catherines/Niagara: definitely not the demand for HSR, but running hourly (more frequent during peak) train service to St. Catherine's will capture some of the existing demand to/from communities along the south shore. Intermediate stops are key, as their is a decent number of commuters along the corridor that work in the Hamilton area. This is an easy win infrastructure wise, as the corridor exists, is underutilized, and can support fats conventional service. Canal crossing improvements are easier to justify once the train is running regularly to St. Catherines.

Brantford/London/windsor: there isn't a ton of demand to get between Hamilton and London, transferring to a Via train in Aldershot is probably fine. More bus service would be better. Brantford has demand, but more frequent buses are probably a wiser investment then trying to increase rail service.

Kitchener/Waterloo/Guelph: This is one that needs investment, but would be worth it in the long run. 30 minutes bus service should be the minimum, with some protection for a future transit corridor. Providing some form of upgrades transit between Hamilton and these communities would go a long way to reducing the need to use a car to get between cities in the region without having to transfer through Toronto.

 

[Sunnyside]

Moving this to a slightly more relevant thread. For the next 50 years, there isn't really any demand for Hamilton HSR. If we look at the 4 primary directions people could travel to/from Hamilton:

Toronto (Lakeshore corridor): distance isn't far enough to require HSR, plus travel demand is spread between Burlington, Oakville, Mississauga, and Toronto. Probably frequent (2 tph) express service that can get people to Toronto in under an hour with some intermediate stops to allow transfers to local trains, and that will serve most of the demand. This is pretty much doable with current track and infrastructure.

St Catherines/Niagara: definitely not the demand for HSR, but running hourly (more frequent during peak) train service to St. Catherine's will capture some of the existing demand to/from communities along the south shore. Intermediate stops are key, as their is a decent number of commuters along the corridor that work in the Hamilton area. This is an easy win infrastructure wise, as the corridor exists, is underutilized, and can support fats conventional service. Canal crossing improvements are easier to justify once the train is running regularly to St. Catherines.

Brantford/London/windsor: there isn't a ton of demand to get between Hamilton and London, transferring to a Via train in Aldershot is probably fine. More bus service would be better. Brantford has demand, but more frequent buses are probably a wiser investment then trying to increase rail service.

Kitchener/Waterloo/Guelph: This is one that needs investment, but would be worth it in the long run. 30 minutes bus service should be the minimum, with some protection for a future transit corridor. Providing some form of upgrades transit between Hamilton and these communities would go a long way to reducing the need to use a car to get between cities in the region without having to transfer through Toronto.

Appreciate the move, I figured it was getting very off-topic but I needed to get that ‘alternatives analysis’ off my chest.

I’ll circle back to this and other posts later, just glad we have a spot for this discussion!

 

[just east of the creek]

I had some spare time today so,went for a ramble around the Bayview Junction. CN Intermodal appeared to move at a good clip both eastbound and westbound. GO travelled at half that pace and appears to slow further as they travel westbound past the junction. VIA similarily. This is just something that needs to be addressed ( and I know UT has spoken on this previously ). Whether you need to add a fourth track, upgrade the track work, signal issues ….. I am not the expert. But before you talk about electrifying this line (desirable), the fundamentals must be in place.

 

[Bordercollie]

I had some spare time today so,went for a ramble around the Bayview Junction. CN Intermodal appeared to move at a good clip both eastbound and westbound. GO travelled at half that pace and appears to slow further as they travel westbound past the junction. VIA similarily. This is just something that needs to be addressed ( and I know UT has spoken on this previously ). Whether you need to add a fourth track, upgrade the track work, signal issues ….. I am not the expert. But before you talk about electrifying this line (desirable), the fundamentals must be in place.

I thought that the speed restriction was due to being within yard limits, the number of cross overs which are limited to 45mph and the grade getting from West harbour to Bayview junction?

 

[just east of the creek]

I thought that the speed restriction was due to being within yard limits, the number of cross overs which are limited to 45mph and the grade getting from West harbour to Bayview junction?

I don’t have all the answers to those questions. But the Junction has been an issue for an expanding rapid passenger rail service for some time. And I think we see other issues that restrain usage and electrification in other areas along Lakeshore E/W as well. And I imagine the investment into Bayview, whatever the requirements will be (as freight is a major part of this), will be substantial. And this along with other investments along the Lakeshore E/W line (replacing bridges, adding track and bridges) will need to be completed and the final track alignment substantially complete before you can add poles and wires.

 

[Bordercollie]

I don’t have all the answers to those questions. But the Junction has been an issue for an expanding rapid passenger rail service for some time. And I think we see other issues that restrain usage and electrification in other areas along Lakeshore E/W as well. And I imagine the investment into Bayview, whatever the requirements will be (as freight is a major part of this), will be substantial. And this along with other investments along the Lakeshore E/W line (replacing bridges, adding track and bridges) will need to be completed and the final track alignment substantially complete before you can add poles and wires.

Before the VIA cuts there were about 6 round trips daily to Niagara falls plus the maple leaf.
It would be nice to get GO transit frequencies to at least that level again.

The only thing is that Go travel times are much longer.

 

[smallspy]

I thought that the speed restriction was due to being within yard limits, the number of cross overs which are limited to 45mph and the grade getting from West harbour to Bayview junction?

The speed restrictions are due to the local geography limiting the radii of the curves around the harbour, and the quantity of level crossings coupled with the ease of access of the corridor from properties adjacent to it.

Before the VIA cuts there were about 6 round trips daily to Niagara falls plus the maple leaf.

3, one of which the Maple Leaf replaced.

It would be nice to get GO transit frequencies to at least that level again.

GO runs better-than-hourly service to Niagara Falls.

Just because most of those trips are buses doesn't mean they don't exist.

The only thing is that Go travel times are much longer.

The VIA trains were scheduled for an hour and 50 minutes or more. I wouldn't call that "much" shorter, although it is quicker than the GO trains run today, yes. They are also making more stops, meaning that there is more potential for passenger turnover than the VIAs would have had.

Dan

 

[just east of the creek]

The speed restrictions are due to the local geography limiting the radii of the curves around the harbour, and the quantity of level crossings coupled with the ease of access of the corridor from properties adjacent to it.


3, one of which the Maple Leaf replaced.


GO runs better-than-hourly service to Niagara Falls.

Just because most of those trips are buses doesn't mean they don't exist.


The VIA trains were scheduled for an hour and 50 minutes or more. I wouldn't call that "much" shorter, although it is quicker than the GO trains run today, yes. They are also making more stops, meaning that there is more potential for passenger turnover than the VIAs would have had.

Dan

Can I assume at some time there has been a study on what would need to be done to ease these speed restrictions and add capacity? The lines through to Burlington, to Hamilton, and up the escarpment through to old York Road look to face real challenges due to the geographical features throughout the area.

 

[crs1026]

Can I assume at some time there has been a study on what would need to be done to ease these speed restrictions and add capacity? The lines through to Burlington, to Hamilton, and up the escarpment through to old York Road look to face real challenges due to the geographical features throughout the area.

I can’t speak to what may already be “in the drawer”, but I have good reason to say that Niagara expansion is currently an open file at ML.
Having said that, the road from “study” to “active work program” at Ml is a long and winding one.
We shall see.

- Paul.