GO Transit: Union Station Shed Replacement & Track Upgrades (Zeidler)

[pman]

They look like electrical and other utility raceways to me, with peel off plastic protection for a buffed finish underneath. Looks like brushed stainless steel. Aluminum would be a poor choice due to the diesel exhaust being corrosive.

I think you're far too kind. Victorian trainsheds are often wonders of light, grace and grandeur (although over the years, and through especially the last world war, much of the glass was damaged on some and never properly replaced).

Union looks more like a Soviet tractor factory.

Addendum: In all respect to @TransitBart he stated ""workhouse", and I mistakenly thought "trainshed" since reading up on so many of late, but to level the playing field, I'll add a proviso to my "Soviet tractor factory": 'After being bombed.' Even the Soviets weren't quite that glum and oppressive as the Moscow subway attests.

“Union looks like a Soviet tractor factory.”

It’s only Jan 6 and SIT has already given us the post of the year.

 

[Allandale25]

View attachment 169990

This is a quick mock up for the west side of Union Station. 10 through tracks and two bay tracks. I haven't tried the east side yet. I assume the new west concourse would be under the bay platforms, on the other side of York. I am not an engineer, but this seems to be what they're after.

Great to see an attempt to visualize this. Anyone else want to try?

 

[steveintoronto]

“Union looks like a Soviet tractor factory.”

It’s only Jan 6 and SIT has already given us the post of the year.

To clarify, I should make it clear I mean the train shed. To anyone who's seen 'flagship' stations in other nations, this is beyond embarrassing. Even the original Union Station that this one replaced had a grand arched shed and character. Union Station itself has some stunning character to it, albeit some parts are far better than others. But the shed? WTF?

Addendum: On searching for 'Soviet Tractor Factories' I may have to withdraw my claim:

Volgograd Tractor Plant in the 1930s:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volgograd_Tractor_Plant#/media/File:

It's much lighter, brighter and a happier a place than Union Train Shed, with vastly more glass, oddly enough, not to mention much wider platforms...

 

[W. K. Lis]

Would never match or exceed other world beautiful railway stations.

See link.

 

[steveintoronto]

From the very first page of this string, a rendition of what Union's shed could have been, albeit it's purely retrospect now. If there's 'blame' to lay on what we ended up with, the first in line is Parks Canada. Saving monstrosities in the name of "heritage" is a total contradiction in intellect. What could and should have been saved is the underpinning superstructure. What sat on it should have been vanquished to let in the sky as the wonderful rendition does reusing the vertical superstructure extant.

Re: Union Train Shed Replacement & $600 million in GO up

Calatrava!

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Gare_do_Oriente_(10000658884).jpg

The concrete structure is awful, but the canopy as shown above heavenly. It could have been so easily emulated for Union.

 

[CapitalSeven]

Could this maybe be split into two threads; one for talking about the ongoing work and the plans to reconfigure the platforms, and another for the endless, repetitive wailing about the preservation of historic but unbeautiful industrial heritage?

 

[steveintoronto]

Could this maybe be split into two threads; one for talking about the ongoing work and the plans to reconfigure the platforms, and another for the endless, repetitive wailing about the preservation of historic but unbeautiful industrial heritage?

And possibly change the meaning of "shed" too? Perhaps if the meaning were changed, it wouldn't look so bad?
"go-transit-union-station-shed-replacement-track-upgrades". Nothing stopping anyone discussing either...

 

[crs1026]

Could this maybe be split into two threads; one for talking about the ongoing work and the plans to reconfigure the platforms, and another for the endless, repetitive wailing about the preservation of historic but unbeautiful industrial heritage?

What more soothing and non-repetitious code word would you suggest we use when the discussion of ongoing work and plans to reconfigure the platforms reaches issues of “why are they doing it this way?” and/or “why aren’t they doing something like x”?

It may sound like wailing, but the dogmatic preservation of that structure is truly the elephant in the room for all the architects and engineers who are tasked with making the station more efficient and attractive.

- Paul

 

[smallspy]

It may sound like wailing, but the dogmatic preservation of that structure is truly the elephant in the room for all the architects and engineers who are tasked with making the station more efficient and attractive.

- Paul

The massive columns that hold up each track are a far, far bigger impediment to any reorganization of the station than the shed is.

Dan

 

[steveintoronto]

Here's where GO and the City were kneecapped from the start:

The train shed is a designated heritage structure. GO Transit worked with Parks Canada and a heritage architect in the overall design, ensuring that the heritage character of the roof is preserved. The roof will feature an environmentally friendly green roof. The glass atrium will float over the tracks, providing daylight at platform level and a visual connection from the station to the waterfront. It will have louvered panels for air circulation. At night, the atrium will light up with Toronto skyline. Project Status The new atrium is being built in sections to minimize disruption to GO’s regular rail services. Construction work started in January 2010. All of the steel columns and secondary (framework) steel has now been installed. The atrium structure is scheduled to be complete in 2014 and the balance of the revitalization work, in 2016.

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pdf/firstwave/Fact_Sheet_Union_Station_EN.pdf

Which is akin to declaring the Don Jail as heritage, and unable to open it up to let in any more light. I don't think Parks had any idea of the engineering of what existed/exists and the need to adapt it.

 

[crs1026]

The massive columns that hold up each track are a far, far bigger impediment to any reorganization of the station than the shed is.

Dan

True that - but - Are they seriously discussing moving those? I can’t imagine the impact of doing that on the entire structure, and all those recent renovations.... that would effectively be a teardown. I would imagine they are looking at which existing tracks to remove and how to put a mall up the middle at track level by severing others. i

And, if you shift the track centers, you shift the trainshed supports - good bye trainshed.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

And, if you shift the track centers, you shift the trainshed supports - good bye trainshed.

Yeah, this was something that the Calatrava design discussed in this thread accommodates, it would be supported on those columns, but of course the heritage designation stated 'present train shed roof'...someone got mixed up with this:

http://www.okthepk.ca/dataCprSiding/articles/201101/foto02.htm

Look at the light!

Compare that to:

Union Station Train Shed | ERA Architects
eraarch.ca

The Union Station Train Shed, designed by A.R. Ketterson, a Toronto Terminals Railway Assistant Bridge Engineer, was built in 1929-30. The design was a variation on the Bush train shed invented by American Engineer Lincoln Bush in 1904. Bush sheds replaced the large, expensive, and difficult-to-maintain balloon-framed sheds that were common in 19th-century Europe. Smoke ducts directly above the tracks permit the evacuation of smoke from locomotives while protecting passenger platforms from the elements. Other Bush sheds include: Chicago Union station (1925), Hoboken NJ (1906), Winnipeg (1911), and Montreal Windsor Station.

ERA, as the Heritage Consultant, is responsible for the conservation of the Train Shed as part of Union Station Train Shed Rehabilitation. The Train Shed Rehabilitation is a major part of the 10-year program of repair, restoration and upgrading of the Metrolinx facility and railway corridor.

http://www.toronto.ca/union_station/history.htm

Roughly halving the amount of tracks will allow the remaining tracks to be underpinned by the columns...will it also allow opening up the new much wider platforms to more direct light? Costly? Of course, so is necessary reorganization of the tracks. As to why this was never considered in the present reno, God only knows, but there's no reason to leave the place less appealing than a 'Soviet Tractor Factory'.

It could remain a "Bush Train Shed" but God forbid, people could be bathed in natural light, and walk upright at the same time...

 

[crs1026]

^An interesting point.... how many Bush trainsheds were at stub end terminals, and how many were run-through? I'm no expert, but only Winnipeg stands out as run-through, Chicago also. Certainly, having an underground 'basement' complicates the design. That Montreal trainshed looks so nice and neat because there are no elevators or stairwells along the length of the platform.

After thinking about this, it's quite possible to replace the two tracks under each arch of the roof with one track in the middle, provided the weight of the track can be supported in that position, leaving the trainshed alone. Another alternative is just to cut back one of the two tracks to four or so carlengths at each end, retaining it for short consists that might not draw such a crowd. Either of these would give more platform space in the middle. Guess we'll wait and see what GO comes up with.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

^ Retained tracks could just be left where they are now presently, as IIRC, the pillars are right under the tracks to directly bear weight. The infrastructure between the track pillars may not be strong enough to relocate the tracks without bolstered cross members.

The real question would be the engineering needed/possible to open up more roof for direct light, albeit under glass for weather protection.

So far, all I've found for GO's latest plan is 'napkin drawings'. If anyone has a serious engineering analysis or precis, please link and/or post.

This goes back to @Urban Sky 's claim for (Frankfurt's?) six or so track through-running station that has handled more traffic than Union for over half a century. It comes down to modern signalling and control. If GO was installing this, surely someone had the vision to cue the 'Reno Chiefs of Union' (sounds like a band from the Eighties) of what was coming down the track...

Addendum: Just had a chance to Google on this, only to realize UT had a piece up before Christmas by the excellent Jonathan English:
http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2018/12/union-station-big-changes-are-coming

Got to read then run. Will link and discuss more later.

 

[Urban Sky]

This goes back to @Urban Sky 's claim for (Frankfurt's?) six or so track through-running station that has handled more traffic than Union for over half a century.

The claim was about Hamburg Hauptbahnhof (main station) and referred to its 4 S-Bahn (RER) tracks, which serve 18 trains each during rush hour (3 lines operating every 10 minutes), thus 72 trains per hour, thanks to complete grade separation of eastbound and westbound traffic, utilisation of rolling stock with many doors (similar to Metros) and of course also the use of a modern train control and signalling system...