GO Transit: Construction Projects (Metrolinx, various)

[Leo_Chan]

Won't GO Transit have two platforms at Downsview Park? If so, are they accessible through the TTC station without paying a TTC fare?

No, if there will be 2 platforms (it will eventually), then they will both have separate fare areas in the station. The TTC and GO fare paid areas are separated by glass

 

[Megaton327]

Won't GO Transit have two platforms at Downsview Park? If so, are they accessible through the TTC station without paying a TTC fare?

They will have two platforms. There will be a public passage through the station between the two GO platforms, outside of the TTC fare paid zone. When you take the escalator down from ground level on one side of the tracks, there will be a hallway, and at the other end of the hallway will be the escalator up to the other side of the tracks. In that hallway on concourse level, in the middle, there will be TTC faregates to the side, so the hallway is divided lengthwise into unpaid/TTC paid zones. The circulation to and from ground level is entirely outside the fare paid zone.

 

[Leo_Chan]

They will have two platforms. There will be a public passage through the station between the two GO platforms, outside of the TTC fare paid zone. When you take the escalator down from ground level on one side of the tracks, there will be a hallway, and at the other end of the hallway will be the escalator up to the other side of the tracks. In that hallway on concourse level, in the middle, there will be TTC faregates to the side, so the hallway is divided lengthwise into unpaid/TTC paid zones. The circulation to and from ground level is entirely outside the fare paid zone.

You just expanding on what I wrote

 

[Megaton327]

You just expanding on what I wrote

No, I was correcting multiple inaccuracies in what you wrote, not expanding on it. No need to get mad.

if there will be 2 platforms

There will be 2 platforms. No "if".

they will both have separate fare areas in the station

No, GO won't have a fare paid area in the station. Once you go through the doors at ground level to their platforms, which are outside, that is their fare paid zone.

The TTC and GO fare paid areas are separated by glass

No, they're separated by several metres in altitude, as the TTC fare paid zone is half of the concourse level and the subway track level, and the GO fare paid zones are their platforms on ground level.

 

[Allandale25]

I'm certainly not an expert but wow, that does look close.

After taking a quick peek, it has me shaking my head. The bridgework ends so close to the corner of the station that there is little room to bend the rail. And the overhang on the platform is not that wide, so the track has to clear the concrete footing. Perhaps the north end of the bridge can be modified. Shifting the bridge itself would be basically starting over, and would require a shift of the railpath bridge also.

If the clearance is there, it's only by a few cm's.

Back when the project was building, I heard some grumbling about clearance issues, but more in the context of contractors taking liberties with the drawings which forced rework. Don't know if this issue was connected.

- Paul

 

[drum118]

Won't GO Transit have two platforms at Downsview Park? If so, are they accessible through the TTC station without paying a TTC fare?

Yes on both account.

If you are coming from the east or west, you can gain access to that side station entrance. You will either walk straight to the other end to gain access to that platform. If you want the other platform, you go down one level to the concourse level and walk freely to the other entrance side to GO platform. There is no separtion between TTC and GO on the main level

All platforms will have a ramp to/from the GO platform to the TTC entrance for accessibility use.

The entrance main level has an elevator to the concourse level. Once inside TTC paid area, there is an elevator to the platform compare to the 2 that should be there encase one is out of service. All Transit Station need to have 2 elevators.

 

[mdrejhon]

> crs1026 said:
View attachment 96923
​

That's some pucker factor, right there.

This is the best photo I've seen, illustrating the clearance problem with the bridge versus the platform edge.

While we don't know the full story behind this, I sure hope this isn't too expensive to fix. This track will be needed eventually someday, even if not right now -- given the number of services GO/VIA/City/province/etc wants to cram down the Georgetown Corridor.

 

[drum118]

> crs1026 said:
​

That's some pucker factor, right there.

This is the best photo I've seen, illustrating the clearance problem with the bridge versus the platform edge.

While we don't know the full story behind this, I sure hope this isn't too expensive to fix. This track will be needed eventually someday, even if not right now -- given the number of services GO/VIA/City/province/etc wants to cram down the Georgetown Corridor.

I said from day one when I saw it being built it was going to be a bitch to bend the tracks from the bridge to clear the platform without doing slow speed past it. I shot almost every angle of this location even when I was on site.

Since this side will not be used by UPX, Metrolinx may saw cut the platform to get the clearance that is needed for a GO Train. Never got any real answer as to why this. As I type this, something pop up that once #1 is install for the full corridor, UPX service will shift to tracks 1 & 2 in place of the current 2 & 3. This will allow UPX left hand running all the way to Union allowing GO/RER to use the the right hand tracks. The crossover would either be at the Humber River Block or south of Jane St. This will depend if Metrolinx builds the east platform at Weston.

Another thing could happen that the existing bridge be remove to allow a wider new bridge and may result in rebuilding the pier supports like Dupont.

As for Islington 6 Monogram Place site, the residents will opposed a station there since its a residential area and traffic will be a bitch for them, even getting on/off Islington.

 

[steveintoronto]

Passing that spot four times today, both under and over the trail bridge, I can now be reassured that where the new bridge is right now is impossible for use. Present position has to be be a staging point for sliding it over. It's now positioned as far west as it can be on the sill in the buttresses. I've sighted angles from up on the trail bridge to what appear to be the bolt fastenings on the street median footing below. The real question is whether the trail bridge can retain the vestiges of the west side catwalk. (It's the oldest of all the bridges there, albeit I do see some solidified resin drip from the most recent concrete pour on it, probably to seal the steel superstructure) .

I have a theory as to why the support piles are down into the concrete street median: It's to ensure greater reluctance to the vertical supports being bent out of alignment when the span is jacked the few feet needed east. Whether those same vertical supports can be re-used when cut off at the base and attached with angle brackets to the new base plate is a good question. The plan might be to leave them in place as the span is jacked onto a new one already pre-positioned.

At present the span is secured by nut and bolt, minimally so. It appears my alarm over a screw-up was pre-mature, but how the span is moved will entertain many viewers!

Anyone remember the CP bridge realignments at Dufferin and Queen some decades back? Remember how CP swore up, down and sideways that they needed at least two main tracks *and* a siding crossing the bridge if GO was going to use their tracks, and yada, yada, yada, we're so broke, yada, yada...and how many tracks do they need now? (GO paid the whole shot)

Anyway, this operation should be very simple compared to the King Subway (Underpass) one.

Again, many thanks for those pics Paul, they clearly show the cause of my initial concern.

 

[drum118]

Passing that spot four times today, both under and over the trail bridge, I can now be reassured that where the new bridge is right now is impossible for use. Present position has to be be a staging point for sliding it over. It's now positioned as far west as it can be on the sill in the buttresses. I've sighted angles from up on the trail bridge to what appear to be the bolt fastenings on the street median footing below. The real question is whether the trail bridge can retain the vestiges of the west side catwalk. (It's the oldest of all the bridges there, albeit I do see some solidified resin drip from the most recent concrete pour on it, probably to seal the steel superstructure) .

I have a theory as to why the support piles are down into the concrete street median: It's to ensure greater reluctance to the vertical supports being bent out of alignment when the span is jacked the few feet needed east. Whether those same vertical supports can be re-used when cut off at the base and attached with angle brackets to the new base plate is a good question. The plan might be to leave them in place as the span is jacked onto a new one already pre-positioned.

At present the span is secured by nut and bolt, minimally so. It appears my alarm over a screw-up was pre-mature, but how the span is moved will entertain many viewers!

Anyone remember the CP bridge realignments at Dufferin and Queen some decades back? Remember how CP swore up, down and sideways that they needed at least two main tracks *and* a siding crossing the bridge if GO was going to use their tracks, and yada, yada, yada, we're so broke, yada, yada...and how many tracks do they need now? (GO paid the whole shot)

Anyway, this operation should be very simple compared to the King Subway (Underpass) one.

Again, many thanks for those pics Paul, they clearly show the cause of my initial concern.

The bridge is the existing bridge since it was first built. The only thing that has been done to it is having a steel deck like the other bridges when they were rebuilt a few years ago. It also carries the ducting for the system.

Don't recall CP requiring 2 bridges at Queen when they already had 2 for the Galt Sub and that would be in the sixties before my time.

 

[steveintoronto]

I have to disagree. That bridge is a brand new build, nothing like any of the others. Not only is it new, it's built in a different way with no poured concrete needed to finish the structure (albeit there's always the possibility to pump it in later, but why?)

You'll note also that it only has the one set of vertical supports at mid-point down to the road median, like all the rest, but unlike any of the others, it has no near-end piers, that occur at the edge of the walkway where it meets the road.

There's a number of other clearly distinguishing features, I've been studying it, engineering wise, it's a beautiful structure, using angled side I-beams as deck support stiffeners and load bearing.

I'll see if I can dig out the CP Parkdale bridge re-alignment, I had a studio at 363 Sorauren at the time, and ironically, even then, CP pulled up the siding after the bridges were re-aligned, I watched them do it from behind 363 Sorauren and crossing the Dundas St bridge over the tracks. I may have some small details incorrect from memory, but the event is very clear, even to the hydraulic rams they had in place to do the job, and Queen being blocked off.

Point of clarity: I may have stated "King Subway" prior. It will be the Queen one.

Post Script: Just went out to take another look to confirm my claims. I was wrong on 'angled I-beam', that I got confused with some road bridge construction I was looking at where angle sided box-sections are becoming popular for the support members.

What the 'new Bloor bridge' is built from is four massive I-beams running longitudinally with latitudinal cross struts *bolted* in. In fact, the entire bridge is bolted together! Correction, it is actually two bridges, each section meeting at mid-point above the one set of vertical support piers.

The top of the bridge (the top deck) is attached with...wait for it...Allen head fasteners (probably a proprietary industrial form of Scrulox or their main competitor, name escapes me right now). There is not one rivet in the entire construction. If the bolt threads don't seize, it can be completely de-constructed. It's a very heavy construction, even the deck plate is about 14 mm thick. The gangway/catwalk is incomplete, missing sections lying on top of deck ready to be installed when moved.

Again, from an engineering perspective, it is beautifully made. And it is brand new.

Here are pics taken by you Drum, almost six years ago: Note the railing! (It has now been removed on the trail bridge for safety reasons)
The 'new bridge' is in a position where there was no bridge prior:
drum118, May 9, 2011

May 8
[...]
A few shots today of the new Bloor St track 6.

 

[mdrejhon]

Again, from an engineering perspective, it is beautifully made. And it is brand new.

A beautifully made bridge that's slightly in the wrong location.

At least if you're right -- Designed-For-Disassembly -- then this does reduce the perceived cost of shifting the bridge somewhat. Heck, you might be able to just keep the existing pillars embedded in concrete -- and simply some new ones at those bolt threads sticking out in the jersey barrier (if that's why there there; and already structurally rated for this bridge -- for the wash plates bottom of added bridge supports). This would be overkill of supports, but allow lateral bridge shifting for what might be relatively low cost (I hope...) possibly representing ~1% of the original bridge build cost. Maybe even less. I hope you're right, steve.

 

[crs1026]

My engineering credentials are nil, but - I would guess that so long as it is not bearing any load, the bridge can be supported from the ends and not collapse. So it may truly be a "small" job to lift and shift it the three feet or so needed to make it line up with the platform. Logic says that one would install the new vertical beams, shift the bridge, and then extract the old ones afterwards....but if there is a reason why that can't happen in that order perhaps a temporary support is all that's needed while the new ones are put in place.

The GTS project clearly involved either renewing that span to like-new condition or installing a new span. I suspect the former....if it was new, why would it be set in the wrong place? It's curious that they didn't do the whole job in one fell swoop. I would point to this as one potential corner cut as costs mounted. Premier Wynne's claim that the project came in on time and on budget is suspect.....it's easy for your project to come in on budget if you cut scope.

As Drum noted, the other impact is that there will have to be stairway or elevator shafts built on the east side of the new track. The current walk-right-in entrances to the platform from the Bikeway will be blocked by the track itself. There is absolutely no room for these on the ROW, so they will encroach on the bike path. During construction, I wonder if the hoarding for these might block through traffic on the bikeway altogether. That's why I wonder if anyone is speaking to the Railpath folks..... while it's for a good cause and may only be for a few months, imposing a complete blockage of the path during construction will require some diplomacy.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

Some great questions and observations, many I had myself, and have now figured a few things out. It was by luck I tripped across Drum's pics from six years ago, they tell a story! (I came across Drum's pics, edited into my last post, by Googling for (tags from the following) 'third bridge CP demanded at Queen and Dufferin, necessitating realigning another to make space for it')(still searching on that, it predates the Dufferin jog realignment by a decade or so)

At least if you're right -- Designed-For-Disassembly -- then this does reduce the perceived cost of shifting the bridge somewhat.

Let me clarify that, that construction (two actually, they do not physically connect at mid-point, more on that later) *is not meant to be totally de-constructed!*. It's an academic point, but it is modular in construction, and at the time of scrapping, if the threads permit on the bolts, it could be disassembled. Rust and corrosion might dictate otherwise...

Heck, you might be able to just keep the existing pillars embedded in concrete

I suspect they are not rated for full bridge loading! I now think most likely they are there purely for the staging of the bridge in stasis, with no added load other than the two half sections' present weight at that point.

This would be overkill of supports, but allow lateral bridge shifting for what might be relatively low cost

I'm now realizing, since becoming aware of how mechanically separate the two halves are, that both the old and new piers and support truss are going to have to co-exist if the deck halves are jacked across. However! If they are moved as they were installed, by crane, that point becomes somewhat moot, albeit it would involve a temporary support (either temp piers or another crane) to support the two halves at their ends while the centre supports are moved and/or replaced.

My engineering credentials are nil, but - I would guess that so long as it is not bearing any load, the bridge can be supported from the ends and not collapse.

That was my first impression until realizing the structure is two distinct sections. Let me project this: If it was just one structure, it could be lifted by crane that way, the I-beams are of such incredible over-spec. Flexing may be a concern though moving a single span with one crane. But this is where Drum's pics I added edited in above tell a story. Note the railings! Those two bridge sections were lifted over those railings and onto their cradles. It would have taken two, albeit very carefully done, operations to do it. Note also: This was done before the new station was built. Note also, the catwalk is fully intact before the new Bloor station was built. It must have been the station builders who disassembled the end of the catwalk so it didn't foul the building. And they did a ham-fisted job of it. I stared at the two removed struts as best I could from the trail bridge, to see that a simple gas cutter had been used to disassemble them. It's like a crime scene! You know damn-well the manufacturer or steel-workers would have used the right tools, or at least a laser-cutter if they had to cut. They actually cut out some nut and bolt connections with a torch to take the fouling pieces off. Savages!

Logic says that one would install the new vertical beams, shift the bridge, and then extract the old ones afterwards....but if there is a reason why that can't happen in that order perhaps a temporary support is all that's needed while the new ones are put in place.

That's pretty much what I've figured out, or since they lifted those sections in by crane (they had to, there's no way that bridge was assembled on-site save for perhaps pre-assembled modules) then that's the best way to move them into their final position.

if it was new, why would it be set in the wrong place?

To stage it for when needed, if ever. I think something has happened in 'the order of things' at Metrolinx HQ, and/or QP and the rush is on to get 'tangibles' out to the electorate. It's the only thing that could explain having to rip out the fencing and steps that have only just gone in months ago. They got caught by surprise, although God only knows why...

It's curious that they didn't do the whole job in one fell swoop.

My initial thought too...

Wynne's claim that the project came in on time and on budget is suspect.....it's easy for your project to come in on budget if you cut scope.

There's that political imperative at work again. In all fairness, it was probably deemed 'a bridge too far' (I can't help it) to finish within a limited budget what would be needed in the next big step, let alone affronting trail users doing it. Obviously where that span must be is going to take a slice of the trail (which can be moved over).

As Drum noted, the other impact is that there will have to be stairway or elevator shafts built on the east side of the new track. The current walk-right-in entrances to the platform from the Bikeway will be blocked by the track itself. There is absolutely no room for these on the ROW, so they will encroach on the bike path. During construction,

I was just looking at that too, and thinking: 'Should the present contract include facilitating future expansion, or just address the immediate need?' I suspect they did the latter. In the event, knocking out concrete panels to continue the tunnel(s) east under the trail is not that big a thing. Lack of foresight? Doubtless, but including all future expansion does inflate contracts they want out of the way at the time of assigning them.

During construction, I wonder if the hoarding for these might block through traffic on the bikeway altogether. That's why I wonder if anyone is speaking to the Railpath folks..... while it's for a good cause and may only be for a few months, imposing a complete blockage of the path during construction will require some diplomacy.

A *lot* of diplomacy! We'll discuss that point further later.

If any of you get a chance to take a good look at that bridge now, please do, and report back to this forum! I probably don't have everything correct, and might be missing a few clues.

As to how they got a crane in there initially to lay in those sections is a good question. If that access is still available, moving them into their final position is going to be one hell of a lot simpler, probably a one day or weekend closure of Bloor.

Edit to Add:
Note no historical record of a bridge being in the present spot of the 'new bridge'. This is 2002 Google Earth historical view

Photo by E. Victor C. (uploaded 2012)

 

[drum118]

I stand to be corrected about the current bridge for the future track 1 as it is new. Looking at my photos, they were preparing the end support retaining walls for the new bridge back in April 3, 2011.

I don't see any photos for the bridge from 2011 to 2014 for some reason on line and not going to look for them off line. The handrail should be in the same place as the May 10, 2014 shot.

The contractor for this project was APlus, the same one that was doing Pickering.

2 things come to mine that either APlus built things in the wrong location or the designers (Structural Engineers) fail to take inconsideration the clearance requirement for GO. Also, was the designer the same for the station and the bridge or were 2 different one? If 2, did communication take place between them to make sure the proper clearance took place between the 2 projects?? I would say off hand, one hand didn't know what the other hand was doing with Metrolinx being out to lunch overseeing the project to allow the miss match. Then this could be a Metrolinx problem from day one who lay things out for the designers.

I noticed something and have to check it out the next time in the area in Feb before commenting on it.