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

[smallspy]

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.

Of course they're not - they're rebuilding them to reach even deeper as part of the process of adding the lower levels to the concourses.

But that's kind of the issue. People make a big deal about the trainshed impacting the ability to reconfigure the tracks - the trainshed has almost no bearing on where the tracks lie, save for where the smokejacks were located. But moving the tracks would have entailed far, far more work (and far more invasive, too) than the "simple" work that they chose to do.

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

- Paul

Not so. The supports for each were independent of each other, and frankly the ones for the trainshed are far less substantial than those for the track.

Dan

 

[steveintoronto]

This drawing corresponds to what I remember the engineering drawings being as per track support columns:

http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2012/08/cityrail-depth-union-station

 

[yrt+viva=1system]

All this discussion reminds me of a comment that I came across on Steve Munro's blog about the USRC. The comment originated from visiting Deutsche Bahn engineers and train operators who visited Union Station, they thought Union was a museum until Metrolinx officials said it was the main transportation hub.

 

[Urban Sky]

All this discussion reminds me of a comment that I came across on Steve Munro's blog about the USRC. The comment originated from visiting Deutsche Bahn engineers and train operators who visited Union Station, they thought Union was a museum until Metrolinx officials said it was the main transportation hub.

I would love to read that comment, since I happen to have accompanied most probably the same team of Deutsche Bahn International (DBI) engineers and recall them telling me after their tour of the interlocking system at TTR (see this short, but excellent video from the Globe and Mail) that they plead everyone "to preserve this unique piece of railway technology history and put it in a museum", as they were fascinated to learn that there still was a place in the world which uses 1930s interlocking technology and thus keeps it functional.

Probably the only other anecdote I feel comfortable sharing here was that they advised us that "you might have a wayfinding problem" after they weren't able to walk or stand for just 30 seconds wearing their high-visbility vests within the passenger areas of Union Station without getting asked for directions...

 

[crs1026]

^Tried to find this information yesterday, but couldn’t find a source on line - does anyone have the usable length of each platform (in feet or carlengths) at Union?

- Paul

 

[smallspy]

This drawing corresponds to what I remember the engineering drawings being as per track support columns:
View attachment 170161
http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2012/08/cityrail-depth-union-station

I have access to some of the engineering drawings of the property. While that diagram gives a decent representation of what the arrangement is underneath the trainshed, the reality is that it is a very, very busy space in terms of structure.

If you are walking around underneath in the concourses the quick summary is - round columns hold up the track, square columns hold up the trainshed. And you'll notice that the round ones are far denser and more common.

Dan

 

[smallspy]

^Tried to find this information yesterday, but couldn’t find a source on line - does anyone have the usable length of each platform (in feet or carlengths) at Union?

- Paul

I have that info somewhere, but not handy. I'll try and dig it up.

In the meantime, if someone wanted to measure it using a mapping tool, they could probably get a reasonably accurate approximation of those numbers.

Dan

 

[steveintoronto]

I have access to some of the engineering drawings of the property. While that diagram gives a decent representation of what the arrangement is underneath the trainshed, the reality is that it is a very, very busy space in terms of structure.

If you are walking around underneath in the concourses the quick summary is - round columns hold up the track, square columns hold up the trainshed. And you'll notice that the round ones are far denser and more common.

Dan

It is just a representative drawing, agreed. But I have seen an engineering discussion somewhere that detailed the pillars as being directly under each track, and what was involved in 'underpinning' them...the inference being that they didn't go down to bedrock. If that latter point was in fact the case (and this is all built on fill south of Esplanade) I'd have to question the engineering, or the written history of what actually was/is the case, as the continental steam locos especially would have pounded those pillars into soft ground.

From what I can gather so far, the "Bush" shed, plinth and supporting structure was designed and built by a noted "bridgebuilder" at the time, and the structure was built as one. I suspect the columns aren't just close to being under the centreline of the tracks, but right under them. Which brings me to this:

^Tried to find this information yesterday, but couldn’t find a source on line - does anyone have the usable length of each platform (in feet or carlengths) at Union?

I've seen this info on line in years prior. I too have been looking for something definitive to reference my comments.

What I can state with just the 'working diagrams' I've come across is that moving tracks isn't an option without massive infrastructure trussing. Leaving the wanted tracks in place and platform decking over where the unwanted ones are is a simple and effective option.

In digging for this, I keep running across references of Metrolinx envisioning doing this...realizing the *need* to do this a decade ago. Which only begs more questions rather than answer them. WTF were they thinking doing the present trainshed reno?

Here's a tidbit that puts 'location' of the "Esplanade Case"
Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. City of Toronto - SCC Cases (Lexum)
in perspective:

Also visible in this drawing is a stair up to the moat level from the mezzanine level of the station. This design predates the “dig down” plans for the GO concourse. The new lower concourse will be on the same level as the subway mezzanine with a straight access through a lowered moat between the two areas.

Note also that there is a sewer under the moat. This must be lowered to permit the direct access across the moat.

https://stevemunro.ca/2009/04/03/understanding-union-station/

So that's where it is! That sewer, and its running under the 'Esplanade Viaduct' is mentioned many times in statutes and SCC decisions on the land ownership and responsibilities of the railways.

[...]
On the 26th July, 1892, they came to an agreement called the Esplanade or Tripartite Agreement, which was confirmed by the Ontario Legislature, 55 Vict. ch. 90, and also by the Parliament of Canada, 56 Vict. ch. 48. Expensive works were executed, for instance overhead traffic bridges with approaches for vehicles and foot passengers, the closing of certain streets, the deviation of others, the acquisition, abandonment

[Page 621]

and exchange of lands, the raising and removal of tracks, including the erection of a vast Union Station, etc. The construction of these heavy works involved the expenditure of large sums of money amounting to several millions, the Union Station alone having cost the railways $1,370,000, and was approved of by the Parliament of Canada by Vict. ch. 48. It must be observed with reference to the opinion of the learned chairman of the Board that this agreement entirely excluded forever the proposition of a viaduct. I find in his opinion a fair recapitulation of these works, comprehensive enough to give some idea of their magnitude. He says:— [...]

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/9855/index.do

For that sewer and physical and legal details:
https://books.google.ca/books?id=BupHAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA189&lpg=PA189&dq=esplanade+tripartite+agreement&source=bl&ots=1r3QCh3GQQ&sig=m3aC8FL30UEVJTw4obMrIh0Q7no&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjJ5MnChIPZAhUH7IMKHTnmCYQQ6AEITjAF#v=onepage&q=esplanade tripartite agreement&f=false

And that brings us to "Rail Deck Park"....Has anyone in the City given a 'heads-up' on realigning the USRC approaches to fit with what's proposed to cover them? lol...I somehow doubt it...

Addendum. Out of curiosity, and this is stretching the premise of this string, but still relevant, I added "sewer" to the Google search tags for the latter linked reference above, thus:
https://www.google.ca/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=esplanade+tripartite+agreement+sewer

Some of you history buffs might want to read the hits!

 

[drum118]

The reason the columns are lager for the round ones was due to the fact that the existing ones were off set from each one that were out of sight. To give a clean row alignment, each column increased in size. Some columns weren't plum as well.

 

[steveintoronto]

The reason the columns are lager for the round ones was due to the fact that the existing ones were off set from each one that were out of sight. To give a clean row alignment, each column increased in size. Some columns weren't plum as well.

Now this is interesting info! That some weren't plumb might only be part of a much larger story. lol..now I'm really intrigued. 'Encasement' is usually to increase the 'footprint', which is what I assumed was the case for this reno. Vertical stability and alignment hadn't occurred to me. Some engineering mag must have a write-up on this...

I'd also be interested to know if the tracks are 'floated' on those pillars, or if the building superstructure is bound into them too? As well as mechanical consequences, it would also affect the degree of 'pounding' transmitted to the building proper. Think subway stations with a track level above you. It can be deafening with a train rolling above you, let alone put massive stress on rigid structures.

 

[steveintoronto]

The claim was about Hamburg Hauptbahnhof (main station) ...

[...]
With an average of 550,000 passengers a day, it is Germany's busiest railway station and the second-busiest in Europe after the Gare du Nord in Paris.[6]

The station is a through station with island platforms and is one of Germany's major transportation hubs, connecting long-distance Intercity-Express routes to the city's U-Bahn and S-Bahn rapid transit networks.[...]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburg_Hauptbahnhof

Clearly a point is made...

 

[Urban Sky]

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...

[...]
With an average of 550,000 passengers a day, it is Germany's busiest railway station and the second-busiest in Europe after the Gare du Nord in Paris.[6]

The station is a through station with island platforms and is one of Germany's major transportation hubs, connecting long-distance Intercity-Express routes to the city's U-Bahn and S-Bahn rapid transit networks.[...]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburg_Hauptbahnhof

Clearly a point is made...

Maybe even more impressive is Munich Hauptbahnhof (main station), where the two underground S-Bahn (RER) tracks serve passenger trains every 2 minutes each, thus 60 trains per hour with only 2 tracks (allowing only 20 seconds of standing time without causing delays). This is achieved with Spanish platforms (boarding from the outer platforms, disembarking through a center platform) and LZB signalling (the fixed-block in-cab legacy signalling and ATP/ATO system developed in the 1960s and normally used on all tracks allowing speeds beyond 160 km/h), whereas Frankfurt Hauptbahnhof uses regular platforms and PZB (Indusi) signalling (the variable-block stationary legacy signalling and ATP system originally developed in the 1930s and still used everywhere else in Germany - and in Ottawa!)...

 

[smallspy]

The reason the columns are lager for the round ones was due to the fact that the existing ones were off set from each one that were out of sight. To give a clean row alignment, each column increased in size. Some columns weren't plum as well.

No, the round ones are larger because they need to deal with far greater loading than the ones holding the trainshed do. It has nothing to do with aesthetics.

A train is a far bigger point load - especially once you factor in the live load of a steam locomotive - than a simple steel truss and a wooden structure above it.

Dan

 

[drum118]

No, the round ones are larger because they need to deal with far greater loading than the ones holding the trainshed do. It has nothing to do with aesthetics.

A train is a far bigger point load - especially once you factor in the live load of a steam locomotive - than a simple steel truss and a wooden structure above it.

Dan

I see you miss job site meetings nor been in the belly of the beast to hear/see about the various issues related to the existing columns and why some increase in size for aesthetics looks. Loading did play a part as well.

 

[steveintoronto]

This is achieved with Spanish platforms (boarding from the outer platforms, disembarking through a center platform)

With reduced tracks, wider platforms, and symmetrical both side door pattern on GO coaches, Union is a prime candidate for doing this. GO already does in a mild form by opening one side first, the other a minute or so later. It's conducive to a more ordered exchange, With a regime set-up to do it, it could work wonders. Of course, Metrolinx is now using the verboten word "escalators" in realization that Union isn't a bottleneck by default, it's been made that way through a succession of bad choices...