GO Transit: Construction Projects (Metrolinx, various)

[DonValleyRainbow]

it would just be an expansion of the concourse underneath of the new platform presumably. Similar to the new concourse and platform that they built around 10 years ago.

AKA Bay South/York South?

 

[Megaton327]

AKA Bay South/York South?

Yes, likely Bay South and York South would be slightly expanded, and possibly new stairs added to the York West Teamway. The Union Plaza area might also be slightly expanded for better passenger flow+28/29, I'd like to see that.

 

[dowlingm]

No, because they don't need to raise the trainshed.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

That's good news Dan. Did Metrolinx release that in print at any point, or is that just "known if you need to know"?

 

[steveintoronto]

If the rail is depressed, then while Panguard might deal with rail anchoring, one wonders what happens with vibration and noise in the structures underneath. It's one thing to depress when nothing is underneath, or when you're doing it deliberately as part of a planned design. If the underground structure and support design assumed that the shed would be tall enough without depressing the rail, well...

That's exactly why I posted and linked the engineering information and the case studies of situations akin to TorUnion. The design is *very* absorptive of vibrations. It would actually greatly reduce noise and wear on the rails in Union if used, as well as allowing lowering of the trackbed.

Very rushed right now, but:

PANDROL VANGUARD is a unique rail fastening system with very low vertical dynamic stiffness that leads to high levels of vibration isolation.
The significant reduction of vibration and secondary noise makes it ideal for applications in the most sensitive areas to these environmental concerns. Pandrol Vanguard assemblies are suitable for application on concrete sleepers and timber sleepers, slab track on bridges, tunnels and viaducts. It delivers exceptional vibration attenuation at a much lower cost than floating slab track.

• Very low vertical stiffness down to 4 kN/mm
• Low profile system can be easily retrofitted with various footprint designs
• High level of lateral and vertical adjustability
• Opportunity for future proofing standard stiffness baseplates
• Virtually maintenance free

The Pandrol Vanguard can be installed on new track construction and is also suitable for retrofitting existing rail fastening systems where reduction in ground bourne noise or secondary vibration is required.

[...]

http://www.pandrol.com/product/pandrol-vanguard/

 

[TOareaFan]

That's exactly why I posted and linked the engineering information and the case studies of situations akin to TorUnion. The design is *very* absorptive of vibrations. It would actually greatly reduce noise and wear on the rails in Union if used, as well as allowing lowering of the trackbed.

Very rushed right now, but:

http://www.pandrol.com/product/pandrol-vanguard/

I try hard to stay out of technical discussions as much as possible.....usually way beyond, both, the scope of my knowledge and the capacity of my brain.....but when I see words like those I bolded the thought that immediately enters my brain is "but aren't the doors to the vehicles perfectly aligned now with platforms and lowering them will lead to the doors not being so perfectly aligned?"

 

[steveintoronto]

I try hard to stay out of technical discussions as much as possible.....usually way beyond, both, the scope of my knowledge and the capacity of my brain.....but when I see words like those I bolded the thought that immediately enters my brain is "but aren't the doors to the vehicles perfectly aligned now with platforms and lowering them will lead to the doors not being so perfectly aligned?"

For the disability ramp, perhaps, but the change is only a few inches. There's already a steel ramp manually put in place that takes care of the gap and height difference.

For all the other doors affected (19 on a 10 car train, double that if both sides open) it means the step down isn't so far.

 

[mjl08]

Sorry if this has been discussed recently, but when the hell are the renovations going to be finished at Exhibition Station?

The page is down online.

http://www.gotransit.com/public/en/improve/projects/exhibition/

 

[smallspy]

That's good news Dan. Did Metrolinx release that in print at any point, or is that just "known if you need to know"?

Look in the EAs going back 20+ years. Metrolinx's media department apparently doesn't have access to their library (or maybe want? maybe they don't know that it exists?), but most of us as individuals do if you ask for permission.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[rbt]

... but when I see words like those I bolded the thought that immediately enters my brain is "but aren't the doors to the vehicles perfectly aligned now with platforms and lowering them will lead to the doors not being so perfectly aligned?"

I assume you quoted my earlier message as I don't see the text you were referring to in your comment.

It's not quite level. For most of the platform length, except specifically modified areas near the accessibility coach, the platform is at the original height from when freight was a concern, and is a little below level with the train floor. There is some variation from platform to platform.

Picture from CBC.

 

[mdrejhon]

That's good news Dan. Did Metrolinx release that in print at any point, or is that just "known if you need to know"?

I think it is based off industry standards -- it is too low for a springy floating catenary wire but enough room for a stiffened overhead "rail" (plus large-size insulators where it attaches to the shed, to prevent arcing to iron shed structure). Been done elsewhere.

The overhead iron rail can be thought of as simply a thick steel plate with its edge pointing down, with roughly the same cross section of the wire, and several centimeters tall. The pantograph would slide against this overhead rail (edge of a long steel plate) when inside Union.

Still cheaper than the engineering challenges of raising the shed.

 

[steveintoronto]

Similar can be seen

...enough room for a stiffened overhead "rail" (plus large-size insulators where it attaches to the shed, to prevent arcing to iron shed structure). Been done elsewhere.

This is being done in Crossrail tunnel and is the norm in many other locales. Similar can be seen where streetcars go under bridges. It's also safer in stations, as it is far less likely to come unattached in an accident and snake around loose amidst passengers on the platform.

 

[dowlingm]

I think it is based off industry standards -- it is too low for a springy floating catenary wire but enough room for a stiffened overhead "rail" (plus large-size insulators where it attaches to the shed, to prevent arcing to iron shed structure). Been done elsewhere.

The overhead iron rail can be thought of as simply a thick steel plate with its edge pointing down, with roughly the same cross section of the wire, and several centimeters tall. The pantograph would slide against this overhead rail (edge of a long steel plate) when inside Union.

Rigid bar conductor is commonly used, true, but to be honest I figured that was always the plan anyway. It's just weird to me that there has never been follow up on the Star and Globe stories from end January 2016. It's like everyone just pretended it didn't happen.

 

[steveintoronto]

It's just weird to me that there has never been follow up on the Star and Globe stories from end January 2016. It's like everyone just pretended it didn't happen.

Yeah, I Googled on it a few days back, couldn't find any follow-on, not even Metrolinx putting the story to rest. It is conspicuous by absence of mention.

 

[Coruscanti Cognoscente]

Maybe they realized it wasn't really a problem after all and didn't bother to publish a retraction hoping everyone would forget.

 

[dowlingm]

Maybe they realized it wasn't really a problem after all and didn't bother to publish a retraction hoping everyone would forget.

Maybe there should be a sign up at Metrolinx and TTC "UrbanToronto never forgets"