GO Transit: Construction Projects (Metrolinx, various)

[reaperexpress]

Perhaps someone more educated on level boarding can tell me, but I don't understand why they don't just build the platforms at level height (where possible, I know the freight width issues) and have passengers board with a wide step instead of a step up. To me, it sounds like a sidegrade at worst, but you don't have to go back and raise the platforms again when the gap is filled on the car side.

 

[lastcommodore]

I've watched the video (and thanks for it- it is very good) but is the sole reason just that the gap (or step down then step up) just that it could be a tripping hazard? I feel like it might on day one but people would get used to it, especially if signed well.

 

[smallspy]

The elephant in the room - which applies to both GO and local transit, and will likely apply to Alto - is that Ontario has never built a labour force with the knowledge and skills to work in a transit or railway environment. Building LRT tracks is not the same as pouring concrete curbs for roadways. The lack of a continuous base of projects over past decades has done nothing to equip the province with a supply of qualified expertise and skilled trades to execute the work.
The known and notorious railway construction firms that have set up in Ontario are stlll largely in startup and growth mode. A lot of the managerial talent represents people who have been fired by the operating railways (often more than once) - it's a questionnable pool that just recycles through projects and subcontractors. This is changing, but as much as the construction industry has lobbied for the work, their core strengths lie in other things, and other sectors (residential/commercial buildings, highways, etc).
I'm not confident that ML is managing well against this constraint, but one has to sympathise with the challenge they face especially where they need to operate trains alongside construction work.

- Paul

You want to tell that to PNR, or OWS, or Platinum Rail? Hell, even Siemens who took over RailTerm?

We have lots of contractors who are all very capable of working within the railway environment. The issue is that we need more of them, or for them to build up their workforces.

I've watched the video (and thanks for it- it is very good) but is the sole reason just that the gap (or step down then step up) just that it could be a tripping hazard? I feel like it might on day one but people would get used to it, especially if signed well.

The railways have very stringent standards on just how far out a train can stick out from the centerline as well as at what heights those things can happen. And conversely, very stringent standards on how high and far things like platforms can be.

This will give you a starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loading_gauge#North_America

Dan

 

[smallspy]

Europe is a big continent with many different countries. I can't speak for all of them, but I have lived and worked in the Netherlands, and they are actively grade separating as many crossings as possible, just like Metrolinx. The fact that Metrolinx grade-separates pedestrian crossings is not the main issue here.

If you want, you could maybe suggest they should be using more overpasses than underpasses, which might be cheaper. For example at Maple station, they built a long tunnel from the elevated bus terminal:

Rather than building an overpass that would have reduced the amount of elevators and stairs required:

Tunnels are the preferred method of providing grade-separated accesses to platforms because the distance that passengers must travel is less than if a bridge was built.

That said, Metrolinx has absolutely built overhead bridges where it makes sense to because of the lay-of-the-land, or adjoining structures. Pickering, Rutherford, Burlington and West Harbour, are all pretty good examples of this.

In the case of Maple, the original plan was to build a bridge from the bus loop over the parking lot, east platform and to the west platform. Although it seems as if the bridge itself has been value engineer'd out of the project, it does seem like all of the structures that have been built are capable of handling it if/when the time comes.

Dan

 

[reaperexpress]

I've watched the video (and thanks for it- it is very good) but is the sole reason just that the gap (or step down then step up) just that it could be a tripping hazard? I feel like it might on day one but people would get used to it, especially if signed well.

It would be a very large gap. That's a major hazard even for those who are used to jumping over it.

 

[lastcommodore]

It would be a very large gap. That's a major hazard even for those who are used to jumping over it.

I see. Thanks

 

[WB62]

Why not just ramp the ends with a handrail parallel to the tracks?

Because that would block the b-end door of the accessibility coach

 

[reaperexpress]

Tunnels are the preferred method of providing grade-separated accesses to platforms because the distance that passengers must travel is less than if a bridge was built.

Well yeah obviously on a flat piece of land going down 4 metres to pass under the tracks is less than going up 8 metres to pass over. But we're talking about value engineering here. The question isn't which is better, the question is whether the additional cost is worth the benefit. Just bluntly saying "We do X because it's better" for every design element is how you end up spending $200 Million on a basic infill station along an existing railway.

In the case of Maple, the original plan was to build a bridge from the bus loop over the parking lot, east platform and to the west platform. Although it seems as if the bridge itself has been value engineer'd out of the project, it does seem like all of the structures that have been built are capable of handling it if/when the time comes.

How could it be value engineering when they replaced it with a long tunnel under the tracks and under the parking lot to the bus loop, with a long elevator up to the bus loop? Surely a bridge would have been cheaper? When would the time ever come to build a bridge now that they've already built a tunnel?

Existing elevator building at the Maple Station bus loop. Roof of the train platfom canopies just visible to the left.

 

[Bojaxs]

Europe is a big continent with many different countries. I can't speak for all of them, but I have lived and worked in the Netherlands, and they are actively grade separating as many crossings as possible, just like Metrolinx. The fact that Metrolinx grade-separates pedestrian crossings is not the main issue here.

If you want, you could maybe suggest they should be using more overpasses than underpasses, which might be cheaper. For example at Maple station, they built a long tunnel from the elevated bus terminal:

Rather than building an overpass that would have reduced the amount of elevators and stairs required:

Something I forgot to mention when I responded to this post earlier.

I think part of the issue with using overpasses/ bridges for pedestrians at GO stations is the fact that the overpasses have to be high enough to accommodate freight trains. Particularly with trains hauling double stack containers. Obviously we all know that freight trains in North America are much larger & taller than their European counterparts. This might explain why the only time we see GO using overpasses at stations is when they're connecting a station with a parking garage. It wouldn't make much sense to have a very high overpass at a station that has no parking or just surface parking.

Plus we also would have to construct the overpasses to be high enough to accommodate future electrical wiring for electric trains. On top of the freight train requirements.

 

[Fervid Corona]

Woodbine Go Wednesday Morning:

 

[Fervid Corona]

Resources Road Logistics Hub Wednesday Morning:

---

Construction at the split between the Barrie GO and Kitchener GO lines Wednesday Morning:

Taken from the new OpenRailwayMap (.app) site (highly recommend checking out the new one as the old .org one stopped getting updates and the new one displays a lot more from the underlying OSM data for things like North American signals, switches, and track operators):
https://openrailwaymap.app/#view=16.63/43.64888/-79.44106

---

Construction at where the King–Liberty Go station was planned Wednesday morning:

---

Union South Wednesday Morning:

 

[EnviroTO]

I really don't understand why they are future proofing the stations for a 610mm ATR track height. Why not 550mm or 760mm? I don't see that 610mm is any standard other than that happened to be the GO train's floor height when they built the first bi-level in 1976. It will be hard to ever buy off the shelf if infrastructure is built that doesn't really fit common heights. Even the TTC subway with its crazy rail gauge has a platform height that is aligned to more common standards.

 

[ProjectEnd]

Woodbine Go Wednesday Morning:
View attachment 707925
View attachment 707926View attachment 707927View attachment 707928View attachment 707929View attachment 707930View attachment 707931View attachment 707932View attachment 707933View attachment 707934View attachment 707935View attachment 707936View attachment 707937View attachment 707938

This is an absolutely baffling lack of progress for a year's work.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

It would be a very large gap. That's a major hazard even for those who are used to jumping over it.

Specifically, you're looking at the same kind of gap the accessibility coaches have now.

 

[crs1026]

This is an absolutely baffling lack of progress for a year's work.

Seriously? Woodbine now has the highest, longest, best built noise wall on the GO system. lol

Yeah, leaving the track diversion for winter makes no sense to me.

I have not seen a site plan for Resources Road, but it seemed that they decided to excavate an entire hillside to enable that one.

It does seem that part of ML's strategy to de-risk projects is to do only one thing at a time, and leave huge gaps between subcontractors and stages so no one is ever standing around waiting ( except the riders, of course)

- Paul