![the layover montreal the layover montreal](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71WpRB6CMUL._RI_.jpg)
![the layover montreal the layover montreal](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pDfBoTXuyYU/hqdefault.jpg)
The distance from Eastern Avenue to the point north of River Street where the Don Branch crosses the river is about 1.5km. The eastern Don Branch track is overgrown but would be reconditioned under Metrolinx’ plans. Today, there is only one Bala Sub track as far north as River Street where a second track splits off and provides a siding to south of Pottery Road. Originally there were two tracks (one used for switching freight) on the Bala Sub and one on the Don Branch. The Bala Sub and the Don Branch both run north from the USRC on the west side of the Don River. If the Layover does not require service buildings, then there is more flexibility in its possible location, and much less land is required. Another mid-day storage area, on the Lake Shore East corridor near Midland, has none of the facilities planned for the Don Valley Layover. If trains will only be stored during the mid-day period, the work that would occur, and the supporting facilities, would disappear. The original proposal included overnight servicing of trains (cleaning and fuelling). Questions About the Proposals Are The Servicing Buildings Actually Required? However, they have also pressed for early completion of this storage yard to replace capacity that will be temporarily lost from the Don Yard at the east end of the USRC due to construction (possibly the Ontario Line and other reconfiguration of tracks just west of the Don River). Metrolinx claims that this is not their intent and that the track would only be used to store three trains mid-day between the two peak periods. The Environmental Assessment covering this facility is clear that the intent was for 7×24 operation with three shifts of workers and overnight train servicing. That location requires the facility to be built on a platform several metres above the valley floor so that it is level with the existing rail line. The support buildings have migrated as the plans evolved from south of the Viaduct, to underneath it, and now to a location just north of the bridge. This would provide storage for three trains nose-to-tail. The original proposal was changed to use the existing single track between the point where the line crosses to the east side of the river north to the high bridge near the Brick Works. The scheme for the Don Branch ran aground, so to speak, because it would occupy part of the flood plain of the Don River. This begs the question of whether there are other intended or possible uses. This explanation makes sense operationally, but the amount of electrified track is much greater than needed to act as a reversing area for trains from Union. Their stops both ways at Union would be like those of through trains with only a brief stay on the platform and hence a lower consumption of station capacity. Instead of staying on the platform during the reversal, trains would continue east and north onto the Bala Sub, set up for westbound operation, and lay over until their return journey. Support buildings would be located south of the Viaduct.Īccording to Metrolinx, the track on the Bala Subdivision would be used as a turnaround facility for eastbound GO Transit trips ending at Union Station. On the east side of the valley, the single-track Don Branch (a former CPR link to its mainline at Leaside) would be expanded with a three track yard south of Bloor Street.On the west side of the valley, the Bala Subdivision (Richmond Hill Corridor) would be upgraded with electrified double track from the Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) to Pottery Road (a level crossing north of Bloor Street).Metrolinx’ original plans for the lower Don Valley include two separate changes: This article consolidates the main points including an additional alternative that I have not covered before.
![the layover montreal the layover montreal](https://travel-dealz.eu/app/uploads/grafik-662.png)
This tangle of history and garbled explanations is a common situation for Metrolinx. Metrolinx’ Ill-Considered Don Valley LayoverĪs this debate unfolded, it became obvious that some design choices Metrolinx defends are leftovers of earlier versions, and that the actual purpose of the facility has evolved.In two previous articles, I have examined this scheme in detail. In Opponents voice concerns about new GO train facility in the Don Valley, the Globe & Mail’s Oliver Moore writes about the ongoing controversy of Metrolinx’ proposed train storage facility in the Don Valley at Bloor Street.