Quote:
Originally Posted by MolsonExport
I wonder why it isn't feasible to put the CP tracks in a trench through downdown, so that there can be grade separation at major intersections.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snark
If for a moment, imagine the rail crossing at Richmond were to have the tracks lowered 10 meters in elevation (at a minimum) at that location to allow a bridge crossing of Richmond Street passing overhead of the rail tracks (I believe that’s what you are suggesting). The elevation of the rail crossing at Richmond Street (whether that’s at the current at-grade elevation or 10 meters below grade) is tied to the elevation of the rails on the rail bridge structure crossing the Thames to the west (a fixed elevation). The distance from the east end of that rail bridge structure at Talbot Street (a fixed location) to Richmond Street is about 400 meters. A 10 meter drop in elevation over that distance results in a 2.5% grade slope of the track over that distance. A 15 meter change in elevation would result in a 3.75% grade. Both grades would be considered poor for slow travelling heavy freight trains (too steep). The other issue would be the transition of the rail grade from essentially 0% (flat) at the east end of the Thames rail crossing to a 2.5% - 3.5% slope. That transition cannot be immediate (i.e. – sharp change of angle), but rather gradual. That gradual transition would eat into that 400 metre gap between Talbot Street and Richmond Street, shortening the length of the slope run to Richmond, and steepening the grade considerably more.
|
Never mind the exorbitant cost involved. Which would have to be publicly funded, with construction that does not affect CP's operations.
In an ideal world, railways would be trenched or buried completely within our growing central-cities. But the world is not ideal.
(and there are still issues with urban development vs. rail operations where such is the case)