News   Jan 15, 2021
 4.3K     11 
News   Jan 15, 2021
 752     0 
News   Jan 15, 2021
 973     1 

GO Transit: Construction Projects (Metrolinx, various)

abovetoronto

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 3, 2020
Messages
93
Reaction score
232
Movement on the Confederation GO station:

RQQ-2020-PROC-479 - RQQ-2020-PROC-479: Procurement Service Provider for Construction Management Gene


Tender No. RQQ-2020-PROC-479

Metrolinx is issuing this Request to Qualify and Quote (RQQ) to retain the services of Vendor to provide the goods and/or services described herein. Metrolinx intends to notify a Proponent of acceptance of its Submission and enter into a Contract through an open, fair and competitive process.

Metrolinx is accepting Submissions for the Procurement Service Provider for Construction Management General Contractor (CMGC) Procurement Model as more particularly described in this Request Document as required by Metrolinx.

Metrolinx is a crown agency of the Government of Ontario under the Metrolinx Act, 2006, reporting to the Ministry of Transportation. It was created to improve the coordination and integration of all modes of transportation in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA). The Metrolinx mandate includes delivering the best possible transportation services today while leading the way to an even better, more convenient service tomorrow; making the best possible use of public transportation investment dollars; and measurably improving the quality of life in the region.

In September 2018, Metrolinx’s Sponsors Office prepared a business case to appraise the business need for Confederation GO Station based on estimated construction costs and the latest ridership demand projections. It determined that the Full LEED Gold Station building, as originally designed, would not be required to serve the demand of the Centennial Parkway area of Hamilton. Following discussions with the Project Delivery team, Stakeholders, and Sponsors Office, it was agreed to de-scope the work and to redesign Confederation GO Station to suit current needs and projected demand.

All construction scope to the south parking area, has been eliminated. Due to the removal of these works, a retaining wall will be constructed following the south property line to support the future Track 4. Tracks 1 & 2 will be relocated by CN prior to construction, and future Tracks 3 and 4 will be installed by CN following construction, as previously planned.

The platform canopy has been reduced to extend from the mini-platform to Centennial Parkway Rail Bridge and to additional stand-alone shelters on the west end of platform. The rail platform, canopy and structure have been designed to be compatible with future level boarding design.

This project also includes infrastructure improvements undertaken by CN, which include the supply and installation of four through plate girders (TPG) spans, fibre-optic cable relocation, related corridor grading and track shifts to accommodate a future four track corridor for two CN tracks and two GO tracks. A new retaining wall on the south ROW will protect the embankment for the future track construction. All work on the south side parking lot has been de-scoped and will be considered for future expansion.

The objective of this Request to Qualify and Quote (RQQ) is to solicit proposals from Proponents for the provision of services in providing expertise and lead a Construction Management General Contractor complex procurement over a one (1) year term with the option of one (1) extra year at the end of the first year.

The requirements are more particularly described in Scope of Work of this Request Document.

ELECTRONIC BID SUBMISSION will be accepted until 3:00 p.m. on November 30,2020.
 

Amare

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
3,282
Reaction score
3,512
Location
Toronto
So, the GO presser at Cooksville w/the Minister this morning was a non-news event.

It was the 'official opening of Cooksville', post re-do.


The Minister actually took credit for the project, awarded, funded and construction started, under the previous government.

:rolleyes:

While that's not exactly unheard of in politics; its certainly reasonable.
As much as I have a severe distaste for the Con government, I would probably do the same if i knew that my pre-predecessor was the Minister of Announcements (Del Duca). Even if Mulroney tried, she couldnt have more photo-ops than him.
 

KevinT

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
573
Reaction score
677
Location
Kitchener
Under the current Transport Canada (and FRA) rules, the height of the current low-level platforms are as high as they can get while being close enough to get to the doorways of the cars. If the platforms were built at the height of the floors of the cars - as the accessible platforms currently are - then their edge needs to be cut back from the track in order to clear the equipment using the tracks.

This is why GO has the attendants in the accessible cars putting out the ramp from the car to the raised, accessible platform. That gap is massive.

Thanks as always Dan.

So just to confirm, having an accessibility platform sized gap without a ramp is verboten, whereas having a step up from the current height is okay?
 

drum118

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
15,935
Reaction score
9,969
Location
Mississauga, where cars rule city growth
We took a short walk through the east end and hope the big wigs did not visit that area, as it needs one hell of cleaning including the elevator. The last east elevator working.

One more photo shoot of the station and then close the book on it until tracks every get built there.

Crews still doing work on the station and EllisDon has moved all the office to the north-east lot and getting the other lot ready to be used.

I expect Metrolinx will close the 2 lots on the east side of Hurontario since there is more space on the west side now.
 

reaperexpress

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
1,953
Reaction score
1,351
Location
the original Holland Marsh
Thanks as always Dan.

So just to confirm, having an accessibility platform sized gap without a ramp is verboten, whereas having a step up from the current height is okay?

The gap between the train and the accessibility platforms is huge, which is why they need those manually-placed bridges to bridge the gap. Whether or not it would be verboten, introducing such a platform design without the bridge would be a tripping hazard, and even less accessible than the current steps.

GO has been committed to introducing level boarding for many years. All the station designs I've seen in recent years have started with level-boarding platforms and gautlet tracks to let freight trains pass them, but then been revised to ground-level platforms when it became clear that the rolling stock would not be retrofitted with automatic gap fillers in time. This is consistent with Metrolinx's policy to design for 610mm platforms, but actually install 127mm platforms in the interim. Furthermore:
Design and construction shall be coordinated in such a way that the result once complete shall appear on purpose, seamless and clean. It shall not be apparent that this was a retrofit intervention.
For example, Downsview Park station has a future-proofed design. You'll notice that the entrances to the station are onto the accessibility platforms at 610mm but then there's a ramp down to the 127mm segments of the platform. After retrofit to 610mm, those ramps will disappear and the whole platform will be at the level of the station entrances.

I haven't heard anything about the progress of any design work by Bombardier to introduce adjustable gap fillers to the coaches. There are other systems using BiLevels with level boarding, such as the Utah Frontrunner, but those systems only have level platforms. GO's challenge is dealing with the interm situation where some platforms are still at 127mm and still require a physical step on the train.
 
Last edited:

reaperexpress

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
1,953
Reaction score
1,351
Location
the original Holland Marsh
Noticed GO Trains were not lining up with the accessibility platform at the new Kennedy GO Platform to the point the locomotive was stopping south of it in both directions. Other than construction going on for the evacuation of the tunnel dirt for the Crosstown Line, saw no reason for it.

There is an extremely good reason that the trains do not use the accessibility platform at the north end of the interim half-sized platform at Kennedy Station. The accessibility car is always the 5th car back from the locomotive, and as you can see in your pictures, the locomotive is at the north end of the train on the Stouffville Line. So if a 6-car train lined up its accessibility car with the permanent accessibility platform, only two cars would be served: the accessibility car and the cab car. This would be an insane situation given that the platform is actually long enough to accommodate an entire 6-car train. Furthermore, most of the departures on the Stouffville line are currently using 6-car trains.

I'm assuming there's a temporary accessibility platform further south on the platform, in addition to the permanent one you can see in your pictures.
 

drum118

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
15,935
Reaction score
9,969
Location
Mississauga, where cars rule city growth
There is an extremely good reason that the trains do not use the accessibility platform at the north end of the interim half-sized platform at Kennedy Station. The accessibility car is always the 5th car back from the locomotive, and as you can see in your pictures, the locomotive is at the north end of the train on the Stouffville Line. So if a 6-car train lined up its accessibility car with the permanent accessibility platform, only two cars would be served: the accessibility car and the cab car. This would be an insane situation given that the platform is actually long enough to accommodate an entire 6-car train. Furthermore, most of the departures on the Stouffville line are currently using 6-car trains.

I'm assuming there's a temporary accessibility platform further south on the platform, in addition to the permanent one you can see in your pictures.
There is no temporary platform on the new platform as I walked from end to end. There is a shot looking north from the south end and no temporary accessibility platform in it.

I did note that the locomotive is south of the accessibility platform due to construction and no one needs it that is on the train. It possible the train crew would move to the correct location if there was someone on the accessibility platform or the train that needs to be there. There was no notice at the station saying accessibility platform wasn't in service.
 

reaperexpress

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
1,953
Reaction score
1,351
Location
the original Holland Marsh
There is no temporary platform on the new platform as I walked from end to end. There is a shot looking north from the south end and no temporary accessibility platform in it.

I did note that the locomotive is south of the accessibility platform due to construction and no one needs it that is on the train. It possible the train crew would move to the correct location if there was someone on the accessibility platform or the train that needs to be there. There was no notice at the station saying accessibility platform wasn't in service.

Okay that is weird. I wonder why they haven't installed a temporary accessibility platform yet, this is a situation which will remain for many many years to come.

I don't think they could change the stopping position in real time based on someone waiting because it would be too late for the people in the 4 northern cars to walk through the train to reach the accessibility car. They would actually need to stop twice, which is just as insane as the situation they're trying to avoid.

They need to build that temporary accessibility platform ASAP.
 
Last edited:

crs1026

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
6,560
Reaction score
8,497
Wait so has the scope of Confederation GO been reduced again? Also I assume retendering it means more delays?

I read the document as simply clarifying the scope of the previous cutback.

The station was probably oversize, per previous ML habit, but the description of the track work is the telling piece. There won’t be much service if the new track isn’t added. EDIT: The inference is that CN will (eventually) deliver two new tracks, so it’s just the station itself that is being descoped.

- Paul
 
Last edited:

crs1026

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
6,560
Reaction score
8,497
If it was easy, don't you think that they would have done it

That Confederation Station tender referenced above has a comment reading

The rail platform, canopy and structure have been designed to be compatible with future level boarding design.

I’d say ML is setting the table reasonably thoroughly, but as Dan has documented, it’s not like they can just throw a switch and declare it so.

- Paul
 

EnviroTO

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
3,954
Reaction score
69
Location
Yonge & Mt.Pleasant
That first bullet reads like the way you get development to pay for the building of a station is that you expropriate land for that development. Seems like it would work if the land area expropriated and zoning supported a development of the right scale.
 

smallspy

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
4,256
Reaction score
3,910
So just to confirm, having an accessibility platform sized gap without a ramp is verboten, whereas having a step up from the current height is okay?

Well, here's where it gets funny.

There is nothing in any of the Transport Canada rules that say anything about gaps between rolling stock and platforms, other than where they should be/line up within the clearance diagrams.

But.....then the accessibility rules come into play, along with the lawyers and their "silly rules" on liability. While on the railway side of things there's no issue with a gap of a foot or more between a piece of rolling stock and a fixed platform, it becomes pretty obvious that there is no way without an additional piece - the loading ramp, in this case - to allow for a wheelchair or mobility device. And then there's the issue of liability - sure, you or I could jump that gap, but could *everyone*? And thus, is it a reasonable ask that people jump that gap when there may be better ways to circumvent it?

And thus, we've come to where we are today - a fixed step on a piece of rolling stock - which fits within the clearance diagrams - is okay because it covers almost all of the above. It meets the TC rules, it fits within the clearance diagrams, and it easily allows most people to access the equipment/system without undue danger.

I haven't heard anything about the progress of any design work by Bombardier to introduce adjustable gap fillers to the coaches. There are other systems using BiLevels with level boarding, such as the Utah Frontrunner, but those systems only have level platforms. GO's challenge is dealing with the interm situation where some platforms are still at 127mm and still require a physical step on the train.

So, I think I need to issue a mea culpa here.

I referred to "TC and FRA standards for platforms" earlier. I should have just said TC, as the FRA has allowed far more standards in the US than are capable here in Canada.

For instance, there is a standard - colloquially known as the "Western Standard" - which allows for almost-floor level loading of the bottom level of a Superliner/California/Surfliner car. This standard is 15" above the top of rail. As well, the FRA allows for alternative heights to any of the standards in specific cases should certain criteria be met - and it is under this that Utah's Frontrunner has built ~22" high platforms that allow for level loading with the floor of their BiLevel coaches.

As for adjustable gap fillers on the equipment, most of the Bombardier BiLevel cars built for the US market in the past 10 or 15 years have been fitted with powered ramps/gap fillers to meet their accessibility requirements. (Most US properties running BiLevels use more-or-less the same accessible ramp design as was pioneered in Toronto.) I've always found this amusing, as while Metrolinx with all sorts of additional-cost "extras" - larger door windows, powered end doors, additional exterior lighting, etc. - the powered ramps are the one thing that they've not ticked the box on.

Dan
 

Top