Metroscapes
Active Member
Yes, the problem is it does not connect with central Kitchener, and you'd have to connect with a local bus (15min frequency on weekday core, 30 min on weekends) that does not take Presto or other open payment.
|
|
|
GO Transit: Construction Projects (Metrolinx, various)
- Thread starter drum118
- Start date
reaperexpress
Senior Member
Even if there were a non-stop bus from Kitchener station to Guelph station it would take more than twice as long as the train. It's a 35+ minute drive, versus a 17-minute train trip.
This is part of the reason it's disappointing that Metrolinx doesn't have a short-term goal to introduce hourly shuttle train service from Kitchener to Guelph in the meantime while they're waiting for the Silver grade separation to be built.
Two of the three necessary infrastructure pieces were already completed last year (2nd track in Breslau and 2nd platform in Guelph). All that's missing is the track connection from the new Guelph station platform to the mainline toward Kitchener. The travel time is 17 minutes each way, so a single train could provide an hourly service on its own, meeting other (Via/CN) trains at the new Breslau passing track.
Metroscapes
Active Member
Yes, but my message was prompted by forthcoming bridge replacements between Kitchener and Guelph. Ultimately, such a route should be in place for any other disruptions and augmenting offpeak service. Getting to Kitchener has been long treated as an offshoot of Milton corridor service as if Guelph was far flung to the north.
vistaway
Active Member
Some of the work on the Etobicoke Creek bridge done last weekend (looking north):
Allandale25
Senior Member
Time lapse video here by Michael Lindsay:
Why was there no service on the Lakeshore West line this past weekend? Metrolinx was replacing multiple spans of the 100+ year old Etobicoke Creek Bridge near Long Branch station. The time lapse… | Michael Lindsay
Why was there no service on the Lakeshore West line this past weekend? Metrolinx was replacing multiple spans of the 100+ year old Etobicoke Creek Bridge near Long Branch station. The time lapse video below shows you that this was a truly round the clock effort - with hourly check ins between...
www.linkedin.com
drum118
Superstar
Dec 7
Finally caught up to my backlog with a lot more up on my site
Sunlight was against me for a dead on shot. This is what track 3 bridge first haft looks like before been place on Dec 13-14. They may do the first haft of track 1 & 2 on Dec 20-21 with the other haft on Dec 27-28 or only one track one weekend and the other track the next week since the exist deck bridge is for two tracks in the first place from what I have heard.
The east tunnel is ready to be place under the Long Branch Corridor
Finally caught up to my backlog with a lot more up on my site
Sunlight was against me for a dead on shot. This is what track 3 bridge first haft looks like before been place on Dec 13-14. They may do the first haft of track 1 & 2 on Dec 20-21 with the other haft on Dec 27-28 or only one track one weekend and the other track the next week since the exist deck bridge is for two tracks in the first place from what I have heard.
The east tunnel is ready to be place under the Long Branch Corridor
urbancog
Active Member
Metrolinx posted a Request for Qualification & Quote for Consultant Services for GO Expansion Track and Track Related Projects on Friday (19th Dec). The description includes:
"In the delivery of multi-phased rail corridor service expansion programs, the Metrolinx Asset Management & Maintenance (AM&M) - Track Office requires the services of a Vendor to provide engineering services covering technical support on an as required time basis for all phases of GO Expansion track and structures related projects from design to hand-over. Such services will also include supporting the development of corporate track standards specifications and associated investigative programs in developing track standards unique to Metrolinx-GO Transit owned rail corridors supporting predominately passenger train operations. These services shall be tailored when required, to passenger and light freight train operations."
Track design and construction will now be managed by the Asset Management & Maintenance team. Giving this responsibility to the on-going maintenance and track performance team could provide better feedback from ops & maintenance to standards, design, and construction supervision, but could it delay service improvements because of poor coordination of track work with other components of GO Expansion?
It's odd that they're not acquiring/building these skills in-house, still relying on consultants whose focus has to be whoever is currently paying their bills. Wouldn't they benefit more from that better feedback if they had an in-house track standards team?
Trackwork may "when required" be designed & built for passenger and light freight trains not the typical North American heavy freight trains. Because they own the tracks in the GO Expansion areas (to Malton, Unionville, Oshawa, Burlington, Barrie-Allen) can they limit the weight of freight trains even where CN & CPKC have track usage rights?
"In the delivery of multi-phased rail corridor service expansion programs, the Metrolinx Asset Management & Maintenance (AM&M) - Track Office requires the services of a Vendor to provide engineering services covering technical support on an as required time basis for all phases of GO Expansion track and structures related projects from design to hand-over. Such services will also include supporting the development of corporate track standards specifications and associated investigative programs in developing track standards unique to Metrolinx-GO Transit owned rail corridors supporting predominately passenger train operations. These services shall be tailored when required, to passenger and light freight train operations."
Track design and construction will now be managed by the Asset Management & Maintenance team. Giving this responsibility to the on-going maintenance and track performance team could provide better feedback from ops & maintenance to standards, design, and construction supervision, but could it delay service improvements because of poor coordination of track work with other components of GO Expansion?
It's odd that they're not acquiring/building these skills in-house, still relying on consultants whose focus has to be whoever is currently paying their bills. Wouldn't they benefit more from that better feedback if they had an in-house track standards team?
Trackwork may "when required" be designed & built for passenger and light freight trains not the typical North American heavy freight trains. Because they own the tracks in the GO Expansion areas (to Malton, Unionville, Oshawa, Burlington, Barrie-Allen) can they limit the weight of freight trains even where CN & CPKC have track usage rights?
Bojaxs
Senior Member
All tracks, even tracks owned by Metrolinx, must be built to withstand Class 1 freight trains. I believe it's a federal regulation.
Class 1 freight operators must have the ability to detour around any derailments or obstructions on their mainlines. So if their is an obstruction on CN's York subdivision, they can detour through Union Station. Although in most cases CN would probably just park their trains at either Pickering or Aldershot and wait till the obstruction is removed.
SaugeenJunction
Senior Member
My understanding is that it isn’t a Federal regulation rather a best practice where MX doing things that limits the ability to detour on their lines upsets the Class 1s and makes other things like increasing service on freight lines harder during negotiations. Correct me if wrong.
smallspy
Senior Member
There is no such thing as a "Class 1 freight train".
There are various classes of railroads - CN and CPKC are considered "Class 1" railways by virtue of their size. Shortlines are covered by other classifications, and larger railways (but smaller than CN and CPKC) such as ONR covered by other ones still. But their trains are ultimately all the same, made up of locos and freight cars.
I think that you're thinking about are the various "plates" that are used to describe the clearances required around rolling stock and the right-of-way. Yes, GO trackage must meet a specific set of clearances regarding those different plates, but it does not necessarily need to meet the largest or smallest plates.
Dan
Northern Light
Superstar
I don't know that I've read the detailed contract language in one of the 'running rights' clauses after CN sold track to Metrolinx over the years.
But would I be wrong to assume CN's legal department would have included language the tracks be maintained to a standard suitable to their operation?
Presumably running rights are pretty worthless if Mx can substitute certain corridor conditions that would effectively neuter the option of freights using them?
smallspy
Senior Member
You would be correct.
While in most cases the contracts are not prescriptive as to limit the access that CN maintains to their former trackage, in at least one case it is extremely restrictive to them.
But no matter what, they are still allowed access.
Yes and no.
What Metrolinx has tried to do is prevent CN from regularly running through freights on their network, except in cases of emergency. And they've been pretty successful with this - lowering the speed limit for freights so that they take longer to get across the network. (Nevermind the fact that this has detrimental effects to the overall capacity of the line when freights do run on there, but there are a fair number of folks at Metrolinx who remain oblivious to this.) This has prevented CN from using Metrolinx trackage in times of congestion on their own lines which used to be the case in years back. Metrolinx taking over dispatching of their own lines has only helped their case with this, too.
But in doing all that, it hasn't really prevented CN from running their local switchers, which service all of the various trackside industries. So they still have that benefit.
So long as some trains from the "outside world" are required to use Metrolinx's tracks - this includes VIA, ONR and ALTO, going forward - they will need to retain some minimal ability to run freights on their lines, too.
Dan
crs1026
Superstar
Once a track is maintained to the standard needed to run bilevel GO trains, the ability to run freight is pretty much baked in. ML as owner road can however constrain freight in terms of speed, weight, etc.... and can be as arbitrary towards other railroads as they are to passenger operations.
I suspect @Bojaxs is confusing the term "Class 1 railroad" with the "classes of track" (Class 1 being the lowest class track, 15mph max). Track standards are set by federal regulation, but railway operators are free to pick the class of track that they desire for each section of line. Higher class track implies tighter specs and costlier inspection and maintenance minimums.
The need for ML to import expertise may in part be the result of importing track maintenance practices and technology from overseas. Even in the absence of DB, lots of that is happening. With 2WAD on shorter headways, maintenance has to be more productive.
ML has always had a track standards manual, if you hunt carefully it's still googleable. I suppose that foreign expertise may be advocating for track specs that reflect the lighter equipment and , less freight intensive practices elsewhere. They may be able to secure changes, although my personal reaction is good luck with that.... the freight will still be handled, and the north american standards will be needed for that.
- Paul
I suspect @Bojaxs is confusing the term "Class 1 railroad" with the "classes of track" (Class 1 being the lowest class track, 15mph max). Track standards are set by federal regulation, but railway operators are free to pick the class of track that they desire for each section of line. Higher class track implies tighter specs and costlier inspection and maintenance minimums.
The need for ML to import expertise may in part be the result of importing track maintenance practices and technology from overseas. Even in the absence of DB, lots of that is happening. With 2WAD on shorter headways, maintenance has to be more productive.
ML has always had a track standards manual, if you hunt carefully it's still googleable. I suppose that foreign expertise may be advocating for track specs that reflect the lighter equipment and , less freight intensive practices elsewhere. They may be able to secure changes, although my personal reaction is good luck with that.... the freight will still be handled, and the north american standards will be needed for that.
- Paul