Quote:
Originally Posted by adamuptownsj
Can any rail guys here/in other sub-forums address how long of a lead-up would be needed to put it underground? Like, what grade is acceptable for double stacked containers?
But I do think this would be a decent set of improvements to make. Makes Main>Fairville functional when there's a train running, and allows more/easier Fairville>Lancaster movement. It doesn't fix the core Bridge>Main or Fairville>Bridge issues, when trains are running, but it's a decent cheap improvement.
You could even avoid closing the Tim's altogether if you move the Fairville entrance back here. |
20'-2" above the top of the rail is the clearance requirement for double stack. That is a lot of vertical distance for heavy freight trains that like a maximum of 1.5% grade. The reality is that you also need to have infrastructure above (street level bridges for heavy traffic) for at least Main and Fairville. I don't know how much would be required exactly for that, but I am going to conservatively guess that maybe the vertical difference is going to have to be 22 feet. To keep that vertical change at a max of a 1.5% grade would require about 1600 feet of new grade on both the north and south side of the intersection. I have a hard time believing that that is what they are going to do. For one thing, there is only ~1250 feet between Fairville and the rail bridge over the throughway. That would mean they would go higher than the preferred 1.5% grade just connecting to the bridge over the throughway.
Unless you know for sure that trains are going underground, there is also the possibility of lowering the roadway, and running trains over top.
The link below is an implementation where there is a four lane urban street that, until 1984, was a level crossing of two CN mainline tracks. The two CN tracks carry all the traffic on the Quebec City to Windsor corridor, so it was busy. The street was lowered so the CN mainline could run overtop with minimal, if any, grade change.
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.240512,-...MDMyNS4xIKXMDSoJLDEwMjExNDUzSAFQAw%3D%3D
I always liked this design. A few things to note that I think could be implemented at Simms Corner:
Pedestrian access was maintained and improved by keeping sidewalks above the street traffic and below the trains.
All businesses remained on site although street access was changed as necessary.
The sides were graded and maintained with grass. This helps to keep it pedestrian friendly. Pedestrians still use this regularly.
From the satellite view, you can see this bridge was designed for 4 tracks in 1984, but only 2 have ever been used, so it could be made narrower for 2 tracks.
I am not involved in any bridge design, but I think something like this might be how they proceed because it is likely a much bigger project the other way. I was hopeful that they might come up with a design like this because I like how this one worked for everybody. It's obviously going to be more complex because of the 4 way intersection and the rail crossing two streets. I truly am curious how this is going to be solved.
Prev
I think anyone interested in some of these properties would be better off starting fresh.. shame, but I think some of these are beyond saving, not with great investment at least.
Linear Mode
