rbt
Senior Member
At least not without providing an alternative.
It is possible we could purchase/build them a bypass around the north end of the city in exchange for the east-west corridor currently in place.
|
|
|
Metrolinx buys Toronto-Barrie CN rail line
- Thread starter khris
- Start date
At least not without providing an alternative.
It is possible we could purchase/build them a bypass around the north end of the city in exchange for the east-west corridor currently in place.
DavidH
Senior Member
Platform 27
Active Member
You could probably move up to four tracks on the entire Milton corridor and get continuous all-day rail plus CP freight without too much difficulty. Three-tracking parts in Mississauga alone might get you most of the way there. CP just won't be inclined to hand over the keys, that's all.
The issue of a CP northern bypass comes up from time to time. I think it's even cropped up on this forum. Usually, the inciting issue isn't Mississauga, actually, but rather the North Toronto sub--there's even more CP traffic there and the right-of-way is less likely to handle more trackage--and the proponents are typically dyed-in-the-wool railfans who want passenger service into Summerhill ASAP. (Nevermind the fact it's a less desirable destination than Union for about 95% of 905 riders, but I digress.)
Anyway, the usual solution advanced is a CP bypass more or less parallel to CN's northern bypass, using the 407's utility corridor. I could be wrong, but I think back when CN's bypass was in the planning stages, the original plan was for it to be a unified corridor for both railways, but CP dropped out. CP does have a fair bit of sunk infrastructure along its existing line that would be rendered useless (Lambton yard and Leaside yard) or be inconveniently laid-out (Agincourt yard) if it moved to a northern alignment.
Back to the Milton line, I'm actually personally pretty bullish on its suitability for all-day service. Because of various quirks of historical land-use planning, the proportion of corridor that's residential versus heavy industry is much better than most (any?) of the other lines. With the exception of Dixie, pretty much every station is surrounded by residential/commercial uses and could nicely evolve into a pedestrian/cyclist friendly hub. Fat chance of that for the Bramalea and Appleby stations of this world.
But no, you're not going to be blasting around the bends at 135 km/h anytime soon. (At least, not until someone tries to rig active tilting tech onto a Bilevel for an episode of Monster Garage or something.) So long as CP has heavy through freight movement, non-FRA-compliant EMUs mightn't ever be doable, either.
The issue of a CP northern bypass comes up from time to time. I think it's even cropped up on this forum. Usually, the inciting issue isn't Mississauga, actually, but rather the North Toronto sub--there's even more CP traffic there and the right-of-way is less likely to handle more trackage--and the proponents are typically dyed-in-the-wool railfans who want passenger service into Summerhill ASAP. (Nevermind the fact it's a less desirable destination than Union for about 95% of 905 riders, but I digress.)
Anyway, the usual solution advanced is a CP bypass more or less parallel to CN's northern bypass, using the 407's utility corridor. I could be wrong, but I think back when CN's bypass was in the planning stages, the original plan was for it to be a unified corridor for both railways, but CP dropped out. CP does have a fair bit of sunk infrastructure along its existing line that would be rendered useless (Lambton yard and Leaside yard) or be inconveniently laid-out (Agincourt yard) if it moved to a northern alignment.
Back to the Milton line, I'm actually personally pretty bullish on its suitability for all-day service. Because of various quirks of historical land-use planning, the proportion of corridor that's residential versus heavy industry is much better than most (any?) of the other lines. With the exception of Dixie, pretty much every station is surrounded by residential/commercial uses and could nicely evolve into a pedestrian/cyclist friendly hub. Fat chance of that for the Bramalea and Appleby stations of this world.
But no, you're not going to be blasting around the bends at 135 km/h anytime soon. (At least, not until someone tries to rig active tilting tech onto a Bilevel for an episode of Monster Garage or something.) So long as CP has heavy through freight movement, non-FRA-compliant EMUs mightn't ever be doable, either.
RedRocket191
Senior Member
In my experience, the Milton line is one of the faster GO lines operating today, so I disagree with the comment that the trains take forever to get anywhere.
And why are we skipping past Streetsville anyway?
And why are we skipping past Streetsville anyway?
Dan416
Senior Member
I've never had a problem with the speed, but the tracks to curve a heck of a lot, especially compared to, say, Lakeshore.
I'm not sure how easy it'll be to widen the corridor though. There are a lot of single-family homes backing onto the route and it isn't that wide. 3 tracks might be doable. 4 would be pushing it.
I'm not sure how easy it'll be to widen the corridor though. There are a lot of single-family homes backing onto the route and it isn't that wide. 3 tracks might be doable. 4 would be pushing it.
Platform 27
Active Member
Just took a quick Google-assisted tour of the corridor. Just eyeballing it, 4 tracks appear doable the whole way through Mississauga, even at the tightest stretch, which appears to be immediately east of Cooksville station. A lot of foliage would have to go, but no expropriation, as best as I can tell.
Dan416
Senior Member
I haven't ridden it in a while, but I don't think 4 tracks is doable sans expropriation.
Second_in_pie
Senior Member
If you want to totally fix the Mississauga Go problem, just dig some tracks for Go underneath MCC. Create a station at Hurontario and Burnhamtharope (however it's spelled,) and then bring it back along the 403 corridor to the Milton line. It solves all of the line's problems, if you ask me.
Dan416
Senior Member
LOL and the same people say a subway would be too expensive, yet you want to do all this tunnelling for bilevels that barely make any stops. Right.
kettal
Banned
At least that will provide faster travel time.
Second_in_pie
Senior Member
I'd still be less expensive than a full blown subway, but would provide a faster service through Mississauga. Also, unlike a subway, it would extend that good service all the way to Milton (Cambridge soon.) It'd also reduce the cost of getting Regional Rail service on the Milton line, which is going to have to happen anyways. If you take money out of the Milton line to build a subway that allegedly serves MCC better, then you're screwing over people in Northern Mississauga and Milton that aren't receiving Regional Rail because MCC feels redundant without a pretty subway like Toronto and York do. By tunneling under MCC, people in northwestern Misssissauga and Milton can access MCC much better too. With only having two or three less stops than the subway would, I don't really get the argument against it.
Dan416
Senior Member
There are no plans for all-day service to Milton. All-day service would end at Meadowvale according to GO 2020.
Let's take a look at the stops GO makes from Kipling to MCC:
Kipling, Dixie, Cooksville
And where would a subway stop?
Kipling, East Mall, Sherway, Dixie-Dundas, Tomken, Cawthra, (Cliff Rd), Hurontario-Dundas
and if you continue to MCC: Central Parkway, Square One-MCC.
So GO has 3 stations currently along that length. A subway extension would have around 10. That's 7 more stations, not 3.
You could argue that GO could add a station at Cawthra and maybe divert the Milton line to MCC. In which case, GO would have 5, versus 10. So 5 extra stations.
Of course, as everyone knows, Dixie GO is poorly located and the subway should be at Dixie-Dundas, not where Dixie GO is. Although a Cawthra GO station and subway station could be co-located.
Let's take a look at the stops GO makes from Kipling to MCC:
Kipling, Dixie, Cooksville
And where would a subway stop?
Kipling, East Mall, Sherway, Dixie-Dundas, Tomken, Cawthra, (Cliff Rd), Hurontario-Dundas
and if you continue to MCC: Central Parkway, Square One-MCC.
So GO has 3 stations currently along that length. A subway extension would have around 10. That's 7 more stations, not 3.
You could argue that GO could add a station at Cawthra and maybe divert the Milton line to MCC. In which case, GO would have 5, versus 10. So 5 extra stations.
Of course, as everyone knows, Dixie GO is poorly located and the subway should be at Dixie-Dundas, not where Dixie GO is. Although a Cawthra GO station and subway station could be co-located.
Platform 27
Active Member
RedRocket191
Senior Member
If there is a conflict between the Metrolinx RTP and the GO 2020 plan, the RTP will usually prevail as it has the force of provincial law.
GO 2020 is not GO's alternative proposal to the RTP, as some commentators feel. It is a document that was, unfortunately, slightly obsolete the minute it came out.
Of course, if GO 2020 goes further than the RTP then they will likely go further.
GO 2020 is not GO's alternative proposal to the RTP, as some commentators feel. It is a document that was, unfortunately, slightly obsolete the minute it came out.
Of course, if GO 2020 goes further than the RTP then they will likely go further.
DavidH
Senior Member
Given that both documents are now official documents from the same agency, one would expect any conflicts to be worked out internally.