ShonTron said:
It's a spur. The Belt Line is served from the CP Hamilton Yard, and there's no way an auto plant or a major container port will go in, served by the Belt Line. There will never be double stack trains crossing King Street.
Click to expand...

Never say never. It is an industrial port served by a short line rail road.
 
drum118 said:
Someone is trying to do a fast one for the underpass as well trying to kill the line.
Click to expand...

That's a hell of a conspiracy theory drum.

Consider that CP is likely the senior at this crossing (as they obtained it from Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway). They have the final say, and they would likely be risk-adverse, worrying about a scenario where an LRT is disabled at the crossing, holding up a shipment. This suggests an underpass is appropriate to them.
 
mdrejhon said:
(to go under CP railroad tracks that are literally used only a few times a week max... ugh)
Click to expand...

Try twice a day in each direction at the least, actually.

ShonTron said:
The Hamilton Belt Line spur doesn't carry double stack cars (autoracks or intermodal containers), but the CP spur in Cambridge does, as it serves the Toyota plant. The excuse works for ION phase II, but not for the Hamilton LRT.
Click to expand...

Actually.....

It does. Not loaded, of course, but NSC has been building double stack cars at its plant for years. And CP is frequently used to ship them out.

But that's not the point. NSC builds lots of other types of cars, many of which are "exceeding Plate C clearance" cars which are almost the height of loaded double-stack cars or "super-sized" autoracks. If they can't guarantee a wire height that will clear the cars, than there needs to be some alternate idea thought up. And NSC is certainly not the only customer down in the Burlington St industrial area that ships such big cars, either.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 
smallspy said:
Try twice a day in each direction at the least, actually.



Actually.....

It does. Not loaded, of course, but NSC has been building double stack cars at its plant for years. And CP is frequently used to ship them out.

But that's not the point. NSC builds lots of other types of cars, many of which are "exceeding Plate C clearance" cars which are almost the height of loaded double-stack cars or "super-sized" autoracks. If they can't guarantee a wire height that will clear the cars, than there needs to be some alternate idea thought up. And NSC is certainly not the only customer down in the Burlington St industrial area that ships such big cars, either.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
Click to expand...

How did it work then with the HSR overhead wires?
 
ShonTron said:
How did it work then with the HSR overhead wires?
Click to expand...

Good question - I don't know, to be honest. I suspect though that the trolley poles had enough extension in them to allow the wires to be high enough to clear any excessively high cars.

At places in Toronto where streetcar and subway lines crossed the railways, they did their best to make sure that they were raised about as far as the poles would allow them. I can't help but figure that HSR did the same.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 
drum118 said:
Someone is trying to do a fast one for the underpass as well trying to kill the line.
Click to expand...
It could also be a negotiating ploy (e.g. CP).

Anecdotally, the overpass is tentative and not a confirmed item -- given Andrew Dreschel of TheSpec often likes to highlight the dramatic.

I'm thinking.... Is there a way to do a solid overhead rail that raises automatically when a freight train is about to come through?

Like a removable section of catenary (really an overhead third rail, like the ones embedded on the underside of bridges when it's too tight for catenary -- and the solution GO may plan to use for the Toronto Union Shed for GO electrification).

Or a flexible section of catenary that is automatically pushed upwards temporarily? By default it would be already as high as possible, then raised upwards, say, an additional meter when a freight train approaches -- to permit double stack. Catenary is generally rather tight but a small section could theoretically be made more flexible.

Freight is infrequent enough that seemingly simpler solutions like these could be done -- but I'm trying to research if there's precedent elsewhere in the world for these...
 
Last edited:
mdrejhon said:
It could also be a negotiating ploy (e.g. CP).

Anecdotally, the overpass is tentative and not a confirmed item -- given Andrew Dreschel of TheSpec often likes to highlight the dramatic.

.
Click to expand...

Could you post a map of the location of where the overpass may need to go?
 
Allandale25 said:
Could you post a map of the location of where the overpass may need to go?
Click to expand...

Here.

6WVXeWG.png

d5oRwm1.png

oWpJNOH.png
 
DonValleyRainbow said:
Here.
Click to expand...

Thanks. They just posted the HLRT slides for tonight's public presentation including the track plan. See here for the main site with the slides and track plan.

For the track plan for this location see below. I wonder why a full grade separation is needed? Do they really need it if this is a branch line that only has infrequent service? I'm sure others here know more than me on this so please correct me. I'm just thinking of the arrangement that was made in KW.

2czN03z
 
If freight can fit under the wires for KW's LRT, why couldn't CP's trains fit under the HLRT wires if the crossing was at grade? Or does CP hold some kind of veto?

mdrejhon said:
It could also be a negotiating ploy (e.g. CP).

I'm thinking.... Is there a way to do a solid overhead rail that raises automatically when a freight train is about to come through?

Like a removable section of catenary (really an overhead third rail, like the ones embedded on the underside of bridges when it's too tight for catenary -- and the solution GO may plan to use for the Toronto Union Shed for GO electrification).

Or a flexible section of catenary that is automatically pushed upwards temporarily? By default it would be already as high as possible, then raised upwards, say, an additional meter when a freight train approaches -- to permit double stack. Catenary is generally rather tight but a small section could theoretically be made more flexible.

Freight is infrequent enough that seemingly simpler solutions like these could be done -- but I'm trying to research if there's precedent elsewhere in the world for these...
Click to expand...
 
A trenched underpass here is very unattractive to Delta residents. A LOT of urban realm enhancements, plus a station at Delta would be needed in exchange for this.
 
Allandale25 said:
If freight can fit under the wires for KW's LRT, why couldn't CP's trains fit under the HLRT wires if the crossing was at grade? Or does CP hold some kind of veto?
Click to expand...

The shared section along the Waterloo spur is owned by the Region of Waterloo. The LRT / Metrolinx crossing near King & Victoria is being grade separated.
 
Thanks for the update I couldn't make it out tn

The Queenston terminal is a joke and looks like something Owen Sound would design.
On the bright (west) side, McMaster is building a mix-use transit terminal incorporating GO/HSR/LRT with offices, retail and fast food.

Another oddity is the one lane of westbound traffic between Queen & Hess. Not a fan making eastbound cars detour around Queen/Main/Caroline.
We were initially promised only International Village (Mary to Wellington) would have such lane restrictions.

Still a stop at Scott Park rather than Gage, however the feedback package seems to want people to comment that a Gage Stop is needed (so please send the city feedback from the City's LRT site asking for a station at Gage or for Scott Park Stn to be moved there).

Happy about the quasi-pedestrianized Hughson between Gore Park & Hunter/ Hamilton GO Centre.
I really don't get why they just don't terminate the A-Line spur the extra 400m south at the GO Ctr?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top